Lord Elystan-Morgan—took the Oath.

Ethiopia and Eritrea

Lord Avebury: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What further steps they will take in the United Nations Security Council to prevent hostilities between Eritrea and Ethiopia and to find a permanent solution to the border dispute between the two countries.

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, the border dispute between Ethiopia and Eritrea remains deadlocked and tense. We are urging both parties to avoid any threat or use of force and to enter dialogue to seek to rebuild mutual confidence. We, and the rest of the international community, continue to urge both sides to carry out their obligations under the Algiers peace agreement, including accepting as final and binding the decision of the Ethiopia-Eritrea Boundary Commission, so that the demarcation of the border can proceed.
	In light of Eritrea's ban on UN helicopter flights and vehicle restrictions, we supported a Security Council presidential statement condemning this decision and calling for its immediate reversal. We are now working closely with our partners on further council action to help to deliver a peaceful and lasting solution to the border dispute.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply. Bearing in mind that Meles Zenawi continues to prevaricate over the final and binding awards of the boundary commission, six years after agreeing that he would accept it, and that it is costing the United Nations £186 million to maintain the increasingly fragile peace, is it now time for the United Nations Security Council to insist that demarcation should begin and that any minor variations in the line which are necessary to avoid splitting communities should be agreed on site?

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that question. We are indeed working with the Security Council to ensure that the matter is urgently addressed. A UN resolution on this issue is currently being discussed, and we very much hope that it might be agreed by Friday. We are also working with EU partners, and our ambassador has carried out a demarche in Eritrea on behalf of the EU presidency, to urge the Eritreans to lift the restriction and stress to both parties the need for restraint.

Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, is it not important for the Security Council, at this difficult stage of a peacekeeping operation which has already gone on far too long, to make it clear to both parties in the dispute that failure to co-operate fully with the UN force, or to implement the arbitration, will not be tolerated? Has the time not come for a mandatory resolution of the Security Council, warning that any departure from these criteria by either party could lead to the taking of measures by the council?

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, the British Government cannot tolerate the current situation. That is precisely why we are now discussing a new resolution in the Security Council. It is hoped that this will be passed by Friday.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, does the noble Baroness recall that the last war fought between Eritrea and Ethiopia, which ended a few years ago and was ostensibly about borders but in fact about much wider issues, as I am sure she knows, was of unparalleled bloodiness? Hundreds of thousands of lives were lost, and it now looks as though the whole ghastly tableau is about to unfold again. Does she accept that we totally support the sense of urgency needed at the United Nations in getting the appropriate resolution as rapidly as possible? Does she further accept that, while Ethiopia's failure to accept the Permanent Court of Arbitration ruling puts it in the wrong, Eritrea is as much in the wrong by defying the attempts of the 3,000 United Nations operatives and their helicopter patrols to do their work, and that both sides need to be brought up sharply to prevent another hideous conflagration?

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, the Government are very grateful for the support of the noble Lord and his party on the matter. It is up to both sides. Both sides are at fault; there is no black-and-white issue. We continue to work on both sides to bring a resolution to this very significant problem.

Lord Anderson of Swansea: My Lords, is not part of the tragedy that the two neighbours, both desperately poor and with a slipping human rights record, are in danger yet again of wasting their substance and their people on a very avoidable war? What prospects are there of the African Union also being mobilised to bring additional pressure on the two countries?

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, the actions of the African Union are also a matter for the Security Council. I am sure that that is one of the things that it will consider. There may have been a statement today from the African Union on that very issue, but I have not seen it yet, and I deeply regret that.

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, the UN envoy Kenzo Oshima is in Addis Ababa at the moment. What is he trying to tell the parties there, and will he report at the earliest opportunity to the Security Council so that urgent action can be taken to stop the escalating situation on the border?

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, I am slightly deaf today, so I ask noble Lords to forgive me. I believe that the noble Lord's question related to the UN special envoy. The UN will press both sides to reach a very sensible resolution to the problem so that the Eritreans enable the UNMEE forces properly to monitor the situation to see whether there is a build-up of troops on the ground. It will also try to urge the Ethiopians to accept the boundary commission's decision.

British Summer Time

Lord Tanlaw: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they have any plans to extend British Summer Time to the winter months and to introduce Double Summer Time in the summer months.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, there are no plans to change the summer time arrangements at this time. The last experiment with lighter evenings, between 1968 and 1971, proved unpopular and was abandoned following a vote in Parliament. Objections were raised by the farming and construction industries and others involved in outdoor work, particularly in the north of England and Scotland, which experienced difficulties because of the late sunrise in winter.
	Any change would need to have full regard to all the factors involved, including the impact on social and community life, transport links with other countries, health and safety issues, such as road traffic accidents, and the views of the business community and other stakeholders.

Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer, which I shall study with care. Have the Minister and noble Lords on the Front Benches opposite any good reason for not supporting a fact-finding Bill to gain fresh statistics for lighter evenings in the winter? Such a Bill could cover a two-year experimental period of Single/Double Summer Time, starting from the last Sunday in October 2006, and contain a Scottish clause for ratification by the devolved Parliament north of the border. If such a long-overdue but simple measure could find support from the motoring industry, tourism, business and bodies such as the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, as I suspect it would, why can we not just do it and get on with it?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I am not certain what a fact-finding Bill is. We have already had one experiment on the subject, and the figures are known. There are serious issues about the number of accidents that could be avoided, but those facts were known in 1968 to 1971. We had another debate in Parliament in 1996 on a Private Member's Bill, which showed that there was still a wide divergence of views on the issue. The facts are well known and Parliament has expressed its view.

Baroness Billingham: My Lords, is it not the case that the climate of opinion has changed enormously in the past few years? Members on all sides of the House have expressed concern about active lifestyles, particularly in regard to young children who come home from school and have no time to play outside. Yet we are criticising them for becoming obese and so on. Is it not now time for the Government to look at the issue and follow the excellent suggestions made by the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, as I said, there was a debate on this matter as recently as 1996 during the passage of a Private Member's Bill. It showed that views were still polarised. While some groups would be advantaged, others would be disadvantaged, particularly in places such as Northern Ireland, where it is still light until very late. If clocks were put back a further hour, then darkness would not come until midnight at certain points in the year, which some people see as a disadvantage.

Lord Rogan: My Lords, as someone from Northern Ireland—

Lord Howe of Aberavon: My Lords—

Baroness Amos: My Lords, let us take the Conservative Benches first, and then the Cross Benches.

Lord Howe of Aberavon: My Lords, cannot the problems that the Minister rightly states would be suffered by relative minorities be met by those minority communities adjusting their lifestyles to the conditions prevailing? Is that not demonstrated by China, which has one time zone extending from Shanghai practically to Samarkand and is able to cope with the situation? The central European time zone extends from Warsaw and Stockholm to Gibraltar and Coruna and those countries are able to cope. Would it not be hugely to the advantage of most people in this country if we had a time pattern coinciding with that of our neighbours? It would give us coincidental office hours and we would not have to adjust railway and plane timetables.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, some communities might be very happy with that, but it is clear from the debates that other communities would be very unhappy. There would be difficulties; for example, if Northern Ireland were to follow our example, there would be problems in its relationship with the Republic. It is not therefore a simple issue of everyone coalescing around a particular position.

Lord Rogan: My Lords, I live in Northern Ireland and do business there. Does the Minister agree that it is a disincentive to UK trade for our exporters to be potentially out of communication with customers in mainland Europe for two, and possibly four, hours in the business day? We have to commence and finish business one hour after our European competitors.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, this issue works both ways. If we bring our time more in line with central European time, then we will be out of phase with countries in the west such as Portugal and Ireland.

Lord Addington: My Lords, is there not a case for taking a good long look at this matter under agreed criteria so that we can come to a conclusion and move on? It has become a hardy perennial of the parliamentary scene.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, there would be much to be gained if we could. This looks to me like an insuperable problem. A colleague of mine once described it as being rather like a poisoned chalice without any clear sign of where the chalice is.

Lord Dubs: My Lords, that is all very well, but is there any other aspect of policy where, if it could be shown that several hundred, if not a thousand, lives—many of them children's lives—could be saved, the Government would say, "No, there are arguments on both sides."? Will the Government not accept that this is a simple proposition and even in the northern parts of the country—in Scotland and Northern Ireland—lives would be saved by changing the clocks in the way that the Question suggests? When else will the Government turn their back on saving lives?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the facts are very clear. There was a re-examination of injuries which would be avoided if the change were made. The facts are that you would save 100 lives and 300 serious injuries each year. Those figures are based on what happened in 1968–71, so they have been known for an extremely long time. Parliament, knowing those figures, took the decision it did.

The Lord Bishop of Chester: My Lords, I am glad that the Minister recognises that there is a theological dimension to the issue. I can assure the House that whatever happens to the clocks, the Bishops will be up at the same time in the morning saying their prayers. Does the Minister think that the pressure towards extending summer time is a reflection of the general decadence of our society, with people getting up later in the morning?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, no. I think that it is a straight fight between those who get up early and go to bed early and those who get up late and go to bed late. Where you divide on that issue, you divide on the whole issue.

Lord Levene of Portsoken: My Lords, we debated the subject in this House about 18 months ago and perhaps I may repeat the remarks I made. A businessman travelling from London to Paris leaves London at eight in the morning and arrives in Paris at 10; a businessman travelling from Paris to London leaves Paris at eight and arrives in London at eight. That is a huge commercial disadvantage. Furthermore, I do not understand how, with the greatest respect to the farmers in the northernmost parts of the Union, that the time matters quite so much. The cows do not look at the clock, but our competitors in Frankfurt and in Paris do. We should recognise that as soon as possible.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, as far as I know, and from brief inquiries, there is no strong push from the business community to make this change.

Identity Cards

Baroness Sharples: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is the likely total cost of preparations for the introduction of identity cards; and how much has so far been spent by government departments and agencies on such preparations.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the overall estimated costs for introducing identity cards are commercially sensitive. To release those estimates in advance of the procurement could prejudice the Government's ability to secure value for money.
	However, since we announced the intention to introduce legislation for an identity cards scheme in November 2003, £28.66 million has been spent by the identity cards programme up to September 2005, excluding any spend that may have been incurred by other government departments.

Baroness Sharples: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply. Is she aware that it is more than 12 years since I first asked the Question on identity cards of my noble friend Lord Ferrers? I did not receive a very encouraging Answer then. As there has been such discrepancy in the various estimates of the cost of such a card, is there not a danger that the cost will increase considerably above what she has told us it will be?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, first, I welcome the noble Baroness's persistence in the area. I hope that she will continue to ask her questions. We are relatively confident that the figure we have put forward, which is £584 million per annum, is a robust figure. KPMG, which is, as noble Lords know, a leading audit and accounting firm, has been commissioned to produce an independent review of the costing methodology and key costs for submission in the business case. As a result, we think those figures are sound

Lord Clarke of Hampstead: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the advertising that took place last week recruiting people to the Passport Office had a clear link to proof of identity? The number of jobs and the number of places for issuing such passports are the same as those envisaged in the Bill. Is it already a fait accompli in that the United Kingdom Passport Service has the job before Parliament has agreed to the card? Secondly, do we not already have a very efficient service within the Post Office that could issue these identity cards, which would bring in much-needed revenue to the Post Office and save a lot of money on new premises? And I declare an interest as a former postman.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I thank my noble friend and I join him in extolling the virtues of the Post Office. But I have to say to him that it is proposed that biometric passports will come in the next year. The Passport Office is charged with delivering that part of the agenda, and, therefore, it is correct to say that it will be dealing with the biometric introduction of passports from now on.

Lord Waddington: My Lords, will the Minister comment on the LSE study, which estimates the cost of introducing the scheme at £30 billion, which works out at £500 per card? When the Government made their estimate of £5.8 billion, did that figure cover the cost of integrating the scheme's computers with the computer systems in almost every other government department?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we do not believe that the LSE costings are sound. It based its calculations on certain assumptions with which we cannot agree. That is one reason why we asked KPMG to consider how we had costed those issues, based on the evidence that we have at present. We found that KPMG agrees with us that our costings are sound. I could highlight a number of reasons why we do not agree with the LSE on the matter.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, when did the Government abandon the principle that significant sums of money should not be spent on legislation until it is approved by Parliament?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we have not abandoned that. As the noble Lord well knows and as I have said from this Dispatch Box several times, we have to introduce biometric passports next year. That information must be collated for us to comply with the reasonable expectation of our citizens to travel to the United States and to Europe with the means that we anticipate will be necessary.

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, further to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, will the total cost of the ID card be met by individuals so that there will be no further charge on taxpayers?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the charge I mentioned of £584 million is the charge that we anticipate will be necessary to ensure that those costs are covered.

Lord Stratford: My Lords, I personally believe that identity cards should be compulsory. Have the Government worked out a figure for how much it would cost if cards were compulsory and were issued free?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we have not worked out a figure for if the cards were issued free. Noble Lords know that our current estimate is £93 for a passport with identity card and £30 for an identity card issued on its own—that identity card being capable of being used as a travel document and of use for a 10-year period.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, as there is a serious discrepancy in the figure over 10 years between—I am not much good with figures—£5.5 billion and £10 billion to £20 billion, ought that not to be further examined by the House in our debates in view of my noble friend's Question?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we will have the delightful opportunity to discuss such issues at great length when the Bill comes before Committee. One of the discrepancies between the LSE figures and ours is that we calculate on a 10-year time limit and the LSE's figures are based on a five-year time limit. There are a number of other difficulties.
	The Bill is to reach Committee in this House soon and I should tell your Lordships that on Monday 14, noble Lords will have an opportunity to attend a demonstration of the biometrics in Committee Room 4 between 12.15 and 1.15 pm. From the nature of this debate, I know that the room will probably be packed.

Lord Snape: My Lords—

Baroness Amos: My Lords, we are in the 24th minute.

Incapacity Benefit

Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, in begging your Lordships' leave to ask this Question, I must apologise to the House—it should refer to "incapacity benefit" and not "invalidity benefit".
	The Question was as follows:
	To ask Her Majesty's Government how long new invalidity benefit claimants have to wait before receiving their benefit.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, latest figures show that the average time taken by Jobcentre Plus to clear a claim for incapacity benefit, from the receipt of the claim form to the referral for payment, is 15.2 days.

Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the noble Lord must be delighted that I did not ask this Question in respect of jobseeker's allowance where the situation is rather different. Inevitably, there are hang-ups with incapacity benefit. Are they through the call centre system or are they through getting the necessary medical evidence?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, clearly there are a number of stages to the incapacity benefit claim process. There can be factors which lead to delays. But it is worth stating that our target is 19 days. So, on average, we are within that target, although there will be variations between different parts of the country. As regards the contact centre, the target for responding to calls is 90 per cent. The latest figures for September show that we reached 84 per cent.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, as well as dissatisfaction with the difficulty of getting through on those telephone systems, one of the major problems is where people come in and go out of those benefits? Local authorities find that extremely difficult. Those who wish to go back to work find it a great disincentive that the housing benefit or other financial support that they need does not come through. There seems to be no way to keep continuity for people who do not have a continuous degree of disability or incapacity and who try to work when they can.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I understand the point that the noble Baroness has raised. I agree that for people coming off incapacity benefit and going into work, to whom we wish to give every encouragement, there should be linking arrangements so that in prescribed circumstances, if employment does not work out, they can go back on to various benefits. I agree that that should be as smooth as possible. If someone has been on incapacity benefit for any length of time, he or she may be nervous about going back into work. So we need to give them reassurance. We are looking at that in the reform to incapacity benefit, which we will announce in due course.

Lord Addington: My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the major problems in previous attempts to reform incapacity benefit levels take-up was the amount of advice that was available to steer people through the system? Will the Minister assure us that the Government are looking at the ongoing process of giving the right advice to people to make sure that they are capable of being retrained for work that is available in their community?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I very much agree with the noble Lord. We know that many people—between 80 and 90 per cent—who are on incapacity benefit wish to go back to work. We also know that within the current system there can be disincentives and, perhaps, not as much advice, support and help as is possible. That is the purpose of the reform proposals which we will announce in due course. The Pathways to Work pilots, which have worked very successfully, have shown that skilled advisers to assist, help and encourage people back into work can have an enormously positive effect.

The Countess of Mar: My Lords, can the noble Lord explain to the people suffering from CFS/ME how they will be expected to go back to work—many of them want to go back to work—when it is unlikely that any employer will take them on? They will be able to work perhaps for a day or half a day and then have to say, "I'm very sorry, I can't do any more today". How will that work?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I fully appreciate that some people, particularly those with more severe conditions, may never be able to work. But the outcome for people who stay on incapacity benefit is such that for many it is much better for them and society that they go back to work. It is very difficult to talk about a specific condition because individuals vary. But part of the work of welfare reform is working with employers to give them every encouragement to take people into work and off incapacity benefit. The outcome of the pathway to work pilots has shown that employers will work in partnership with Jobcentre Plus. Given encouragement, support and back-up facilities, they are prepared to help. We should welcome that.

Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, at the risk of boring your Lordships, following on from the question put by the noble Countess, surely to goodness employers should be encouraged to take up the modern system of job sharing. Would that not be of great help to the group of people the noble Countess is talking about?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Lord could never bore the House. Of course he is absolutely right: there are many forms of flexible working which might fit the bill. However, the main point to make here is that we have had enormous success in increasing the number of people of working age in work and we need to carry on doing that. Those who remain on incapacity benefit for longer than two years are more likely to retire or die than to go back into work. We know from the Pathways to Work pilots that with the right encouragement and support many people can go back into work—and many have done so. Moreover, the attitude of employers is absolutely critical. Instead of being negative about this, we should applaud the way in which employers have responded to the challenge.

Business

Lord Grocott: My Lords, there are two brief Business statements. The first concerns the Statement to be repeated, with the leave of the House, later this afternoon. It is on the 3rd Parachute Regiment court martial judgment. With agreement, the Statement will be repeated after the three opening speeches of the Second Reading debate; that is, after the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer.
	The second statement follows on from the first. Because we will lose time to the Statement, the time we have available for the other matters to be considered today is a little shorter. We have 27 speakers on the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill. We shall be able to finish by our targeted aim of 10 o'clock if the Back-Bench contributions to the debate are limited to around eight minutes, which is not too bad.

Road Safety Bill [HL]

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	Moved, That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:
	Clauses 1 to 4,
	Schedule 1,
	Clauses 5 to 8,
	Schedule 2,
	Clause 9,
	Schedule 3,
	Clauses 10 to 23,
	Schedule 4,
	Clauses 24 to 32,
	Schedule 5,
	Clauses 33 to 45,
	Schedule 6,
	Clauses 46 to 49.—(Lord Davies of Oldham.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Identity Cards Bill

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in the name of my noble friend Lady Scotland of Asthal on the Order Paper.
	Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to which the Identity Cards Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:
	Clauses 1 to 3,
	Schedule 1,
	Clauses 4 to 45,
	Schedule 2.—(Lord Davies of Oldham.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill

Lord Bach: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill lays the foundations for a more holistic and, we believe, for a more effective approach both to the natural environment and to rural communities.
	The context of this Bill is the vision of rural England set out in the Government's Rural Strategy and Rural Manifesto. It builds on the work done by my noble friend Lord Haskins in his 2003 Review of Rural Delivery. I should like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to my noble friend for his work. It is this review that has provided the context and indeed the basis for much of the Bill.
	Our vision is of a better quality of life for all, with particular emphasis on improving the quality of life of the most disadvantaged. This vision has at its heart the pursuit of sustainable development so that social, economic and environmental issues are all taken into account in shaping policy. Economic prosperity underpins the provision of good public services and other social and environmental benefits. Equally, a healthy environment and a just society are essential for economic success.
	The Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill will create simpler, stronger organisational structures and transform the way in which we deliver rural and environmental services.
	It will create a flexible structure of delivery which is both fit for purpose today and able to evolve to meet challenges ahead.
	Perhaps I may now take your Lordships through a summary of the Bill as shortly as I can. The Bill will establish Natural England as a powerful, independent non-departmental public body. Natural England will be a robust and influential champion of the natural environment. It will inherit the important work English Nature has carried out to champion biodiversity, the expertise of the Rural Development Service in delivering the environmental stewardship schemes and the Countryside Agency's successes in enhancing the landscape and improving access and recreation in the countryside.
	There have been concerns that Natural England will not be "sufficiently environmental". I should like to make our intentions clear on this point. Natural England will be an environmental organisation. This is encapsulated in its purpose, powers and duties and will be reflected in its expertise. It will be expected to contribute to sustainable development, but helping economic development or social justice will provide its decision-making context, not its core purpose. By operating in a sustainable development context, Natural England will actively seek long-term economic and social benefits and avoid unnecessary negative economic and social impacts. We expect Natural England to be a trenchant champion of the environment.
	Concerns have also been raised about Natural England's independence. Natural England will be a key independent adviser to government, public authorities, its stakeholders and customers—and, significantly, no less independent than its predecessor bodies.
	The Bill sets out a wide range of powers and levers for Natural England. Together with the broad and enabling purpose, this framework strikes the right balance between freedom and prescription for Natural England to develop a progressive, wide-ranging approach towards its environmental aims. I believe that it is right for Natural England, as an independent body, to make judgment on how best to manage its priorities and any conflicts that might arise, rather than for these to be prescribed at the outset by government.
	I am pleased to be able to inform the House that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has asked Sir Martin Doughty to take on the role of chair designate of Natural England. As many noble Lords will know, Sir Martin has a wealth of experience from his time on the boards of the Peak District National Park and the Countryside Agency and, more recently, as chair of English Nature.
	The Bill will also establish the Commission for Rural Communities as a strong, independent rural advocate, adviser and watchdog. It will ensure that policies and delivery reflect the needs of people living and working in rural England, focusing particularly on disadvantage.
	The House knows very well that social and economic disadvantage are very serious issues for rural people and communities, despite the general prosperity, as it is perceived, of our countryside. The House is always—and rightly, in my view—reminding the Government of the need to tackle issues such as social disadvantage, poverty and economic exclusion. Establishing the new independent Commission for Rural Communities is one of the ways in which we will do just that.
	The Commission for Rural Communities, currently operating as a division of the Countryside Agency, has already told us in its State of the Countryside 2005 report that more than 402,000 rural households have an income which is less than 60 per cent of the English average and that in some rural communities, on the other hand, average house prices are around 10 times the local average household income.
	There are other reasons, too, why we should focus on "rural". Nearly 20 per cent of the population in England live in rural areas—approaching 10 million people—and a quarter of all enterprises are located in rural areas. It is in the interests of our country as a whole that the needs of the rural population and rural businesses are listened to, examined and addressed.
	It is not as simple as treating rural issues as being entirely separate from the rest of the community. In many cases, those issues are the same or similar. But we need to recognise that different solutions may be needed, tailored to meet the particular needs of rural communities. For example, the number of people over 65 in rural areas is proportionately higher than it is in urban areas, and growing at a faster rate. The nature of social disadvantage in rural areas is also more scattered, obviously, than in urban areas.
	Our rural communities will feel most acutely the demands that these factors will have on public and voluntary services during the next 20 to 30 years. We cannot forget that the patterns of economic development in rural areas are different, with much greater reliance on very small businesses and a consequent need for initiatives aimed at small and medium sized enterprises to take particular account of issues affecting rural business. That is why the new commission is so important. It will ensure that the rural voice is heard, play a significant part in what has been described as the "rural proofing" agenda, and make sure that policies, whether developed in Whitehall or town hall, are made relevant to our rural communities.
	Part 2 of the Bill updates and modernises provisions relating to a fairly wide range of legislation concerning the natural environment. It reconstitutes the Joint Nature Conservation Committee as a UK-wide organisation, formally extending its remit to Northern Ireland and setting it in the context of sustainable development.
	Part 3 introduces a number of important improvements to wildlife and habitat legislation, all of which follow lengthy consultation. These include a provision which extends the duty to have regard to biodiversity, introduced in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act, to all public bodies. This will help to ensure that biodiversity becomes a natural part of policy making.
	This part also includes a range of measures to strengthen wildlife protection. It makes amendments to that Act to improve protection for native animal and plant species, and introduces a new and important provision to increase the protection afforded to wildlife from pesticide abuse. In addition, it takes the opportunity to strengthen wildlife enforcement provisions to help ensure compliance with wildlife protection legislation.
	Part 4 creates two new offences to assist the management and protection of sites of special scientific interest: to enforce an existing duty on the part of public authorities and to help further deter intentional or reckless damage.
	The national parks, broads and areas of outstanding natural beauty are recognised as our finest landscapes and as leaders in sustainable land management. Part 5 contains provisions to ensure that the statutory framework is sufficiently clear and flexible to enable them to operate efficiently and effectively.
	I shall return to Part 6 in a moment. Part 7 reconstitutes the Inland Waterways Amenity Advisory Council as an independent body supported by Defra and by the Scottish Executive.
	A central part of the Government's rural strategy is to improve enjoyment of an attractive and well managed countryside for all. The Countryside and Rights of Way Act created a new right of access to some of the finest countryside in England and Wales and introduced a range of measures to improve the rights of way network. The CROW Act strengthened Section 34 the Road Traffic Act 1988, under which it is an offence to drive on footpath, bridleway or off road, but in recognition of continuing widespread concern about the negative impacts of both illegal and legal use of rights of way by mechanically propelled vehicles, the Government launched a public consultation in December 2003. In January of this year, the Government published their conclusions. The main thrust of their response was twofold: first, to encourage more effective use of existing legislation and best practice in the regulation and management of mechanically propelled vehicles on rights of way and in the wider countryside. Guidance on this will be published before the year is out. Secondly, to change the legislative basis on which motor vehicular rights of way may be established.
	That change is what lies behind Part 6 of the Bill, which curtails the scope for establishing rights of way for mechanically propelled vehicles by extinguishing those rights, so that they cannot be claimed and recorded on the definitive map and statement, which is the local authorities' legal record of rights of way in England and Wales. This is a radical step, which should not be underestimated.
	Your Lordships will be aware that there has been considerable interest in these provisions throughout the Bill's passage, with cross-party pressure to commence them as soon as possible. My honourable friend the Minister for Rural Affairs made clear in another place that the Government intended to introduce a package of measures in your Lordships' House to commence the provisions as soon as possible after Royal Assent. Legal advice is currently being sought on how to deal with any byway applications made between now and commencement, and how to treat existing, outstanding applications in a way that is fair and appropriate. I hope to be able to share the text of those amendments shortly. Our aim is to safeguard and strengthen the future of the rights of way network for the better enjoyment of all.
	Part 8 of the Bill contains a range of measures that aim both to modernise delivery today, and to secure organisational flexibilities for the future. Chapter 1 enables the Secretary of State to enter into agreements with what are described as designated bodies to allow those bodies to perform functions—effectively for the Secretary of State to delegate environment, food and rural affairs functions. It also, importantly, includes provision for delegation agreements between designated Defra delivery bodies and local authorities. Those deregulatory provisions are an important part of Defra's work on better regulation. They will give Defra and its bodies the flexibility needed to look at the best ways of delivering services to customers, and provide a mechanism to avoid duplication and waste. Importantly they also remove the legal barriers to allow Defra's delivery bodies to work together in closer partnership—for example, as we have heard in this House, on inspections, so that there are fewer inspectors walking up the farmer's path.
	It is important to note that these agreements allow for the delegation of the delivery but not the accountability of functions, which remains with the original body. That ensures that accountability to Ministers and Parliament is not eroded. Chapter 2 gives the Secretary of State powers to establish new bodies for agricultural and related industries and to amend or dissolve existing levy bodies for the purpose of helping to develop and promote agricultural and related industries. As the House will be aware, the Government have commissioned a review of levy boards, which I can confirm will be published on Friday. We shall consult widely on the findings of this review, and consider all views, before deciding exactly how to implement them. The provisions provide flexible enabling powers to implement the conclusions following that consultation on the review.
	The Bill contains an ambitious, but I hope not too controversial, programme of change and reform. While I recognise that certain areas will generate more heated debate than others, I hope we shall be able to focus on the very real and practical benefits which the Bill will bring. It will benefit rural businesses, it will benefit rural people, it will benefit the environment and, moreover, it will benefit the taxpayer.
	The Bill is an integral part of the Government's rural strategy and has been well received both by the organisations most affected by it and by Members in the other place. I am grateful to all who have engaged in the debate and dialogue on it to date, both at seminars and in bilaterals. I should finally like to take this opportunity to thank my predecessor, my noble friend Lord Whitty, for his invaluable input during the Bill's early stages. I hope—and I hope not in vain—that the Bill will be given a positive and constructive passage through the course of its proceedings in this House and look forward to working with your Lordships to improve the Bill as it progresses. I commend the Bill to the House.
	Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Bach.)

Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing the Bill to the House this afternoon. I remind noble Lords of my family's farming interests, and also of my association with several rural organisations and charities.
	We are very much looking forward to hearing the maiden speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter, who is with us today. I understand that he was formerly Bishop of Birkenhead and had a great input with the farming community there. We look forward to his contribution, which is coming shortly. We welcome him to the House.
	This Bill comes to us, as the Minister has said, after a searching passage through another place and amendment by the Government as a result. The Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill—the Natural England part of which will be headed up by Sir Martin Doughty—follows four years of pressure on Defra and its associated bodies. On the surface, this is the outcome of the report of the noble Lord, Lord Haskins. We add our thanks to him for that. We should remember, however, that his work was occasioned by poor performance levels at that time on the part of Defra. There was the sluggish response to the outbreak of foot and mouth disease; the lack of control over subsequent events, and I believe there are still some outstanding bills to be paid; the problems that followed the amalgamation of the cattle tracing service and the Rural Payments Agency; the appalling number of errors consequent on the introduction of satellite mapping on farms; the constant evidence of the decline in British agriculture; the closure of rural services, to which the Minister has referred; and the growth of rural poverty and deprivation is still with us. The noble Lord's report was much needed.
	This Bill is to,
	"make provision about bodies concerned with the natural environment".
	Why was it, then, that the Environment Agency was not included? As I recall, it was especially excluded from the remit. Why was this? Why was the Rural Payments Agency left out when, as I have said, its performance—or lack of it—is so crucial to the cash flow in farming communities, as well as to other small and medium-sized rural businesses?
	The noble Lord, Lord Haskins, had just four terms of reference, which I abbreviate: to simplify or rationalise existing delivery mechanisms; to achieve efficiency savings and maximise value for money; to provide better and more streamlined services; and to identify arrangements that can help to deliver Defra's rural priorities and public service agreement targets cost-effectively. We would all support that.
	The main thrust of the Bill is the establishment of Natural England, which occupies six pages and a four-page schedule. It encompasses the dissolution of English Nature and the Countryside Agency and the transfer of the duties of the Rural Development Service. Apparently, however, like a phoenix from the ashes, the Countryside Agency will be resurrected within both Natural England and the Commission for Rural Communities. Why did the Government decide not to take on the recommendation of the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, that the Countryside Agency should simply cease to exist?
	The Commission for Rural Communities is to be established with the general purpose of promoting both awareness of rural needs and methods of meeting them that contribute to sustainable development. I am grateful to the Minister for enlarging upon that. He referred to rural proofing, as we all call it.
	The impact assessment seems to suggest that the set-up costs will be in the range of £5 million to £9 million and that the savings will come from the closure of the Countryside Agency. However, in another place, my honourable friend Oliver Letwin, quoting from the regulatory impact assessment, said that the on-off costs of this simplification measure in establishing English Nature would be between £32 million and £47 million between 2005 and 2009. Will the Minister comment on this?
	We have steadily questioned the creation of the Commission for Rural Communities; not that we do not believe or know that there is a need for a rural advocate, because indeed there is, but because to us this is yet another high-level body responsible for talking.
	True, it is supposed to talk with good effect to government departments, local authorities, local planning authorities and statutory undertakers and persuade them to consider their effects on rural communities. But we have reservations about it. We shall look closely at the reformed Joint Nature Conservation Committee, which is moving into a United Kingdom committee. Although we support that we shall look at it in greater detail in Committee.
	In general we welcome the wildlife clauses, particularly those that deal with invasive non-native species. We recognise with gratitude the benefits that our intrepid explorers of earlier generations brought back to the United Kingdom, but it is now obvious that we have to be selective if our existing flora and fauna are to survive and contribute to our own unique habitat.
	Strengthening the rules on SSSIs is unfortunately necessary. The idea that any Section 28G authority can carry out operations that result in damage to SSSIs is unacceptable. They may well excuse themselves on the grounds of the mass of new legislation, direction and guidance with which all manner of authorities are constantly bombarded. However, these clauses, with their considerable financial penalties, will have the effect of making them more careful in how they treat SSSIs. Amendments to the rules of the national parks and Broads Authority are mainly sensible. But we note with slight amusement that, rather than attempt to define "significant expenditure", the Government propose merely to remove the need to have regard to it at all. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that too.
	Parts 6, 7 and 8 are welcome in principle. I know that many people will be pleased at the new controls to be operated in regard to mechanically propelled vehicles, an issue to which the Minister referred in detail. I also know, however, that there are many who wish to use such vehicles on the rights of way. They feel aggrieved because they feel that they have a lack of suitable facilities. Consequently, in Committee we shall look very closely at the contents of these clauses and the timing of their introduction. We await eagerly the promise made by the Minister in another place on 11 October—at col. 228 of the Official Report—to deal with the flood of applications to register byways on definitive maps. Can the Minister tell us how many there are and how long it will take to process them? In Hampshire, for example—and these are Defra's own figures from May 2005—BOAT applications currently stand at 25, compared with six in 2004. GLEAM, which I know has written to so many of us, has supplied figures showing that in 2005 there were 147 applications, of which 73 are post 11 October 2005. There is a real problem as regards applications that have already been lodged and the pressure put on local authorities by organisations to get the new ones registered. Clarity on that point would be very helpful.
	The Minister referred to the dissolution of existing levy bodies as part of the Bill and referred to Rosemary Ratcliffe's report. The note I have asks when the report will be available but the Minister has already said that it will be Friday. The Minister has spoken of consultation, but how long will that take? How long will it be before individual Peers can get a copy of the report and how quickly will the Government respond after the consultation? Will it be before or after the Bill's passage through Parliament?
	The issue of levy bodies brings me to that of finance. Clause 6 allows Natural England to give financial assistance. Clauses 14 and 24 allow the Secretary of State to make such grants as she sees fit to Natural England and the commission. The latter receives wide financial powers under Clause 23, as do the conservation bodies under Clause 35.
	I have already mentioned the removal of financial restrictions on national parks.
	Clause 87 allows the appropriate national authority to make grants to the new agricultural boards; in England that will be the Secretary of State. Clause 91 gives the Secretary of State wide powers to grant, loan or guarantee moneys in respect of expenditure relating to any matter connected to a "Defra function", and her word that any function is a Defra function is to be conclusive evidence of that fact. I hope that the relevant committees in both Houses will be aware of these various powers and will monitor their use carefully.
	The main part of the Bill occupies 43 pages of print. The schedules take up 58. Of those, repeals and revocations extend for four and a half pages while Schedule 11, entitled Minor and consequential amendments, uses up twenty six and a half pages. In other words, one-third of the Bill is devoted to changes to existing legislation. We should examine this very carefully in Committee to make sure that when we pass this Bill we will be confident that it does not carry the risk of any unintended consequences.
	In the minutes that remain to me I should like to turn to aspects about which we are particularly cautious. First, why, for instance, is the Forestry Commission to be, in the words of the policy statement, a major partner of Natural England rather than an integral part of it, especially when there is so strong an emphasis on the need for it to "work closely" and have a "strong and transparent partnership" with Natural England?
	Secondly, how will the Government ensure the preservation of the independence of English Nature? I have not always agreed with its pronouncements but I have always acknowledged that its voice remains free from government influence. By joining it in a body that is to be subject to direction, guidance and control, are the Government hopeful of eliminating one source of criticism; that is, how can this be a fully independent advice-giving body?
	It is notable that none of the major players in this new organisational structure is elected. Moreover, there is no direct reference to RDAs, even in Schedule 7, entititled Designated Bodies—I understand that is the way the Government wish to push their policy through—although the policy statement refers to those designated bodies having the power to delegate to local authorities and regional bodies. There must, in practice, surely be strong links between the RDAs and both Natural England and the commission, and it is our contention that the Bill as it stands will remove even more accountability from local, elected representatives. Many colleagues are very unhappy about that.
	Finally, we are seriously concerned about the dangers of overlap and disagreement. There is no merit in streamlining an organisation if, in the process, we build in conflict points. The time that used to be taken in consultation and discussion will merely be dedicated to argument and dissension.
	The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee reported on the draft Bill and recommended the use of the Sandford principle,
	"to apply in those exceptional circumstances where there is an irreconcilable conflict, to make clear that the aim of conserving and enhancing the natural environment takes precedence over other purposes".
	I noted that, but as the Minister himself said, that will be a very difficult balance to achieve when it is crucial that economic and social circumstances are taken into consideration for long-term sustainability.
	From my contribution noble Lords will appreciate that it is our intention to examine the Bill very closely in Committee.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, we on the Liberal Democrat Benches also thank the Minister for introducing the Bill. We warmly welcome a Bill whose aim is to improve the natural environment and rural communities in England and Wales. I am particularly looking forward to the maiden speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter. I live in Bideford, and every time I go to Exeter I appreciate the extent of his diocese and the difficulty of getting round all of it. The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, has already told us that the right reverend Prelate will be well qualified to speak on these issues. The speakers' list reads like a Who's Who of expertise in rural issues, and I am looking forward to hearing all the speeches.
	Most of this Bill can be seen as another step on the Government's path to improve the way that we look after the natural heritage of England and Wales and the landscape and biodiversity. I congratulate the Government on continuing on that path. The CRoW Act gave both rights and responsibilities for the landscape and biodiversity of this country. It enabled people to access and enjoy vast tracts of land that they had not been able to access before, and at the same time it gave new powers for instance to AONBs and new responsibilities to people to learn the countryside code and to learn more about what is going on around them.
	The CRoW Act was something that we could build on. It gave government departments responsibility for biodiversity, after a bit of persuasion from the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, and me. I am glad that they took up our suggestion that they include that in the Bill and that they build on it today by extending that responsibility to local authorities. There is a great need for that, because SSSIs are still being damaged and are still in an unfavourable condition. Many species of all sorts of creatures are still in decline, from birds and butterflies to frogs and plants. With the added issue of climate change creating more extreme conditions, species will come under increasing pressure, so preserving their habitats and ensuring that they can become resilient to that pressure is even more important if we are to preserve biodiversity.
	It is also a time of change and opportunity, with the CAP reform that is going through. The reform means that as we move from production subsidies to the single farm payment and a proper emphasis on agri-environment schemes, there will be the opportunity that an agency such as Natural England can grasp. I was extremely pleased to hear the formal announcement this afternoon that Sir Martin Doughty will chair Natural England. On his past record he will make a wise and able chair, and I look forward to Natural England being given a strong start under his chairmanship.
	Having welcomed so warmly the way that the Government are dealing with the natural environment, I am afraid that I cannot say the same for the way in which they are addressing the outstanding social and economic concerns of rural areas. We have to look back and learn lessons from the past before we can look to the future. The Government were given a head start in that regard by the report of the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, on bringing delivery closer to the customer. He made many good recommendations, only one of which I shall refer to this afternoon. The Government have not taken sufficiently to heart the lessons of that report and the things that were self-evident to everyone in rural communities that we all told them about for me to resist the temptation to try to amend the Bill fairly substantially in one or two areas. In particular—and this has already been referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford—is the issue of rural development agencies. The fact that they are not even referred to in the Bill, let alone made more accountable for service delivery in rural areas, leaves a huge gap to be filled.
	Then we must look at the role of Defra. In June 2001 the demise of MAFF and the birth of Defra were announced. Because we use the acronym all the time, we have forgotten that the last two letters of the acronym stand for "rural affairs". So it is the department for rural affairs, and I am sure it has the professional capacity to deliver on a wide range of rural affairs and advise other government departments. The department was troubled by its MAFF past and it found it easier to pass the responsibility to the Countryside Agency for vast tracts of that work. I believe that it still intends to slope its shoulders instead of taking back the responsibility for rural policy, by passing it on to the CRC—yet another quango, and yet another acronym.
	During the time in which the department sloped its shoulders, the problems in rural communities have got worse. We could all name those that have got considerably worse. Lack of affordable housing in rural areas is top of the list. The Countryside Agency brought the matter to the Government's attention time and again. They have finally responded by creating a commission under Elinor Goodman to review the issue. In doing so, however, they have shown the way forward for themselves. They have created a commission to advise them about what to do on rural housing, and can create ad hoc commissions full of experts to advise. They do not need a full-time, stand-alone quango to fulfil that role.
	In Committee, we shall explore exactly why the Government thought another quango necessary. Before the Minister tells me the line about gathering the expertise together, I should repeat the wise advise of the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, whose report in October 2003 was the starting point of the Bill, as the Minister reminded us. I am talking about local knowledge and local delivery. I shall quote recommendation 14 by the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, in full because it is so important. He says:
	"Local authorities and local partnerships should assume the main responsibility for delivery of schemes and services to rural communities. They should be fully consulted by Defra and the Regional Development Agencies about any changes to policy and delivery arrangements and should be given the necessary flexibility to address local needs. The potential of Rural Community Councils as partners in community-based delivery is underestimated and should be enhanced".
	I could not agree more with that statement. If the Government build on what is already there, in local democratic terms they will go a long way down the road of improvement.
	Is the Government's position that they think that local government is still not capable of delivery? Since the Government took that view last time, vast amounts of energy and effort have been spent by the Improvement and Development Agency and the Audit Commission to strengthen the capacity and ability of local government. Either that energy, effort and money has been wasted, or local government is even more capable than it was in the first place. If the rural communities are truly to benefit, and if local democracy is to be renewed in the way in which the Government have said time and again that they are interested in doing, rural delivery must start with local councils. Changes of direction in rural policy that the Government are considering must be fed up from local councils through other bodies, including Natural England and regional development agencies, until we come out with a rural policy that goes up from the grass roots and can really work.
	The Government use all those words from time to time, but when it comes to it we do not see the action. The Bill should really define how rural communities work through their local authorities for social delivery, and how local authorities and regional development agencies interact to deliver the socio-economic side of the package. Why is that especially important now as we go through Second Reading? It goes back partly to CAP reform. When the funding packages come through and the money moves from Pillar 1 to Pillar 2—the rural development pillar—all the funds go through the regional development agencies. Unless we get the equation right of how they sit in the picture, what role local authorities will play in fulfilling the aspirations and expectations of rural communities and enabling them to draw down the funding in a coherent way, there will be no real rural development. It will be a hollow aspiration. I hope that we can amend the Bill so that it will strengthen rural areas in the way that I imagine the Government envisaged that it would when they started to draft it.
	I welcome the provisions in Part 3 on wildlife, and the chance to examine them. Many are needed and worth while. On these Benches, we will look at extending the non-native species provision to birds. Before everybody thinks that that is simply a reaction to avian flu—although that is of course an important consideration—I would say that, as we look to protecting our own birds and realise that it is a criminal offence to catch a bird in this country, we should be affording that same protection to birds of other countries which are less able to spend money on protecting them.
	My colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, will talk about rights of way. Indeed, he is something of an expert on the thorny issues in this Bill. I am particularly looking forward to working again with my noble friend Lord Greaves, as he and I worked together so much on CRoW. I will value his suggestions as to the way forward.

Court Martial Judgment

Lord Drayson: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces. The Statement is as follows:
	"Mr Speaker, I want to make it clear from the outset that the Armed Forces operate to the very highest standards. All personnel are aware of the necessity to operate within the law. It remains MoD policy to initiate a service police investigation into every instance where the action of British service personnel may have led directly to the death or injury of Iraqi civilians. The Government back our troops fully. I, along with the Chiefs of Staff, am very proud of the role the British Armed Forces play in the world. They do an exceptional job in very difficult circumstances and operate to the very highest standards.
	"The trial of the seven members and former members of the 3rd Battalion the Parachute Regiment concluded on 3 November in Colchester, after the judge advocate directed the board to find all seven defendants not guilty. The trial related to an incident in Iraq which occurred at the roadside in Maysan province in southern Iraq on 11 May 2003, following which Mr Nadhem Abdullah, an Iraqi citizen, died. The seven individuals were jointly charged with murder and violent disorder.
	"I am limited as to what I can say about the judge advocate's decision, as this is a matter for my noble and learned friend, the Attorney-General. However, it may be helpful if I place this trial in its operational context.
	"The end of the trial has raised the question of why these soldiers faced these serious charges. Soldiers understand that they are required to operate within the law and their rules of engagement and can be held to account for their actions. All soldiers in Iraq receive a briefing on this. They also receive training in the law of armed conflict as part of their annual training. Soldiers are not above the law.
	"Whenever an incident occurs or an allegation is made, a Royal Military Police investigation is launched by the commanding officer. The conduct and scope of such investigations is determined independently of the chain of command.
	"The RMP Special Investigation Branch is a fully professional investigative agency, which conforms to UK Home Office standards where appropriate and follows civilian police investigative procedures. Investigations are carried out thoroughly and professionally and in accordance with the rules of evidence, UK best practice and application of the standards of the Association of Chief Police Officers, but operational circumstances or cultural differences may limit the forensic and investigative opportunities.
	"In this case, the RMP was operating in a hostile and volatile environment, which clearly impacted on some aspects of its investigation in terms of both its scope and its timing. The decision to prosecute was taken by the Army Prosecuting Authority based upon the evidence gathered by the Royal Military Police. The Army Prosecuting Authority acts as prosecutor in all courts martial and has a similar role to that of the Crown Prosecution Service in civilian courts. The APA is statutorily independent of the Army chain of command, which has no influence over its case management or decision-making process. The decision to prosecute is based on its assessment of the evidence and of the realistic prospects of a conviction, as stated on Thursday by the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General.
	"Everyone is presumed innocent, unless and until they are found guilty. The four servicemen and three ex-servicemen were provided with every assistance to enable them to put their case. A unit defending officer was provided for each of them and acted as their link with their defence team. They were each defended by a QC, funded by the Army Criminal Legal Aid Authority, and they were all afforded full welfare provision throughout the period up to and including the trial. This continues.
	"As the Judge Advocate General made clear, he had no criticism of the Army Prosecuting Authority in bringing the case to trial. This court martial demonstrates the Army's commitment to transparency and accountability. It was held in open court, open to full public scrutiny, and to the same standards of justice and independence that are present in the civilian justice system. All the parties and authorities involved, military and civilian, acted properly and in good faith.
	"The British Army is not complacent. Following all operational commitments, a process of continuous and determined professional review is undertaken. The comments of the judge advocate are being considered and a comprehensive review of the 3 Para trial is under way.
	"In addition, the Army announced a review, following the trial earlier this year of members of 1 Royal Regiment of Fusiliers. The review is being conducted on behalf of the Chief of the General Staff by a senior experienced officer and is looking at issues arising from concluded courts martial relating to deliberate acts of abuse. This review will seek to learn lessons and look at wider issues emerging from trials and other reports in order to safeguard and improve the Army's operational effectiveness. Any findings can be published only after all the courts martial have concluded. This is therefore likely to be some time in the future.
	"This case has shown our determination to ensure that justice is done, irrespective of the difficulties. We are very sensitive to the ordeal that these soldiers have been through. They have acted with dignity throughout and I hope that they will now be given respect and privacy to enable them to continue with their lives.
	"More than 80,000 service men and women have served in Iraq. Only a very small number have been accused of ill treatment of Iraqi civilians, and a number of those have already been cleared of any wrongdoing—as in this case. Our troops in Iraq continue to perform outstandingly but they are not above the law".
	My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. That cannot have been easy for the noble Lord as many aspects of this affair do not fall directly within his remit. I see that the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General is in his place. We would have expected him to repeat the Statement.
	I start by paying tribute to our Armed Forces. As the Minister said, they operate to the very highest standard. While we sit in the comfort of this Chamber we should not forget that nearly 100 servicemen have given their lives in Iraq.
	We asked for this urgent question today because we believe that the wide publicity given to the, doubtless well intentioned, prosecutions of members of the Armed Forces has caused serious damage. This case will have been watched with mounting concern by British troops in Iraq. Morale has been seriously undermined.
	This is not the moment to go into the details of the case but I should like to know who decided that the prosecutions should take place, who decided that those witnesses should come over, and who evaluated their clearly unreliable evidence. One of the soldiers' defence barristers said that he was,
	"aware that there had been a political overview at various stages of the case".
	Is that true? It would be unacceptable if political priorities were put ahead of the interests of natural justice.
	Is the MoD fulfilling its duty of care? It appears that soldiers and their families are left uncertain about whether they may face prosecution. There are reports that the Secretary of State has ordered an "action plan" to address the problem. Can the Minister clarify what the terms of reference will be? Is it the same review that the Minister mentioned in the Statement? When will it report?
	We do not, of course, condone wrongdoing by our troops. As the Minister said, soldiers are not above the law. However, the Government need to recognise that the apparent current policy of prosecuting so many members of our Armed Forces is completely unsustainable. I do not recall so many prosecutions during the equally difficult operation in the first Gulf War. Can the Minister throw any light on the reasons for that? Can he also confirm that the Government will now take a serious look at other outstanding cases to avoid further waste of taxpayers' money?
	Five 2nd Royal Tank Regiment soldiers are still being investigated by the CPS, two and a half years after the event in Iraq, leaving them poorly informed and uncertain whether they will face charges and appear in a civilian court. Her Majesty's Government must accept that those cases will have lasting effects on the recruitment and retention of our Armed Forces. It is very clear to me from talking to a lot of soldiers that they now feel seriously inhibited in what they do in Iraq. They feel that they can no longer rely on the word of their commanding officer. The battlefield is not a court of law. Can the Minister therefore reinforce to the House today the authority of the chain of command?

Lord Garden: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating this important Statement, although I regret that the normal, well oiled machinery that allows us to see it a little before its delivery seems to have gone awry.
	We support the Government's position that our services must obey the rule of law, but if they are to obey it we must ensure that they have justice. We have rightly in this House expressed concern about how the accusations against our soldiers on difficult operations in Iraq have been handled. Here again we have a case that has taken more than two years to come to trial. Does the Minister agree that that timescale is unacceptable if we want to maintain morale among British forces? If so, can he explain what is being done to improve matters—not just a review but what action is being taken?
	We seem to have three different problems. First, the Special Investigation Branch of the Royal Military Police seems to have too many tasks for its limited resources. It also appears that it may lack some of the specialist forensic expertise that it needs in some of those criminal investigations. The evidence seems, on occasions, to be acquired in ways that may compromise a successful prosecution. That also suggests that advice is not as available as it should be. Maintaining the integrity of the evidence and the witnesses must be paramount in any investigation. What urgent steps is the Minister taking to ensure that these problems are rectified quickly rather than waiting for some long review to report?
	The second failing is in the decision-making process. There is some question over how prosecutions are brought. I am aware that the Judge Advocate General did not criticise the decision to prosecute, but nevertheless this House needs to know whether the evidence was weighed in the same way that evidence would be weighed before a prosecution was brought in a civil murder case. Who makes that key decision to go to trial? Are Ministers consulted? Who bears the costs when it goes wrong? What are the costs? We are told in different reports that the cost of this failed prosecution was somewhere between £8 million and £10 million.
	If we have to wait for other courts martial to report, the review that the Minister has announced today sounds like another in a series of Ministry of Defence reviews that disappear into the long-distant future. Can the Minister give us a timescale for it? Can he tell us when an interim report will come out? Can he confirm that it will be delivered to Parliament? Meanwhile, what follow-up actions are going to be taken immediately as lessons from this failure in process?
	I am pleased that my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford is in the Chamber today because he was involved in the trial and may be able to contribute some detail about it.
	The third area that we need to consider is the support for the accused. The Minister was very fulsome about how the MoD did this and that and how the Army and the welfare were all there. But that is not the perception of the accused. If one reads the reports of what they said, the phrases that appear time and again are, "Hung out to dry by the Army", and, "Hung out to dry by the regiment". Even if the support is there, the perception is not, and that affects morale. On previous occasions, we have talked about the duty of care that the Ministry of Defence has towards our Armed Forces. In my view, this is another example of its failings.
	We are asking our troops to serve in very difficult conditions. Opinion polls show that neither local Iraqis nor the British public support their presence on operations. When they are accused of illegal acts, they seem to be treated as though they are already convicted, and there is a perception of inadequate support from the Ministry of Defence, delayed justice and flawed evidence. Does the Minister agree that this cannot continue if we are to retain the loyalty of our hard-pressed Armed Forces?

Lord Drayson: My Lords, noble Lords made a number of assertions and asked a number of questions which I will collate together to answer. There are some broad themes here that I should address. The Opposition tabled a Question for the Secretary of State for Defence which is why I am repeating the Statement in this House this afternoon.
	We recognise the importance to morale for our Armed Forces to feel that they are getting proper support both on operations and in the way in which trials such as these are conducted. We do everything that we can in the support that we give. For example, each of the accused was provided with a QC at public expense and was supported by his regiment. But, as the noble Lord said, we need to understand why there is a perception that the accused were hung out to dry. That is not how we see it. When I was in Iraq that was not the impression I gained, but there have been statements saying that this is affecting morale. I shall look into the matter and ask questions to get further information. It is not my understanding that it affects matters today, but I will look into it further and report to the House in due course.
	The review by the Ministry of Defence is being undertaken with all speed. I commit to give an update to the House on the outcome of the interim findings of the review within a month. It is very important, for the reasons the noble Lord stated, that we report as soon as we can. It will take considerable time as a number of issues need to be reviewed. But it is important for us to keep the House informed.
	As the noble Lord said, there was no criticism by the Judge Advocate General that the case was brought by the prosecution. His criticisms related to failures—as he saw it—in some aspects of the investigation. We must take into account the fact that these investigations took place shortly after main combat operations ended in March 2003. The alleged offence took place in May 2003. The situation was very difficult at that time. It is important to recognise the very difficult job the Royal Military Police undertake within the Special Investigations Branch. Nine members of the RMP have lost their lives serving their country in Iraq. The job they do is extremely challenging. In this case it was made worse because members of the Parachute Regiment returned to the United Kingdom shortly after the alleged offence took place and therefore the investigation had to take place in both Iraq and the UK.
	Noble Lords have questioned the cost of the trial and the decision to bring the prosecution. The decision to prosecute, as I have said, was made by the Army Prosecuting Authority. The judge made no criticism of it. On the cost of the trial, we do not accept the numbers that have been bandied about in the press. However, it is very important that all efforts are taken for the defendants to be properly supported, which is why it was right for them to have had a QC and for the public purse to support those costs. So we make no apology for the costs of the trial. The effect that these things have on the future morale of the Armed Forces means that they must be done properly.
	Clearly, there are lessons to be learnt regarding investigations. The noble Lord questioned why a number of these cases have arisen in this way, compared with other operations, such as the first Gulf War. We need to recognise the circumstances in which Iraq has evolved from major combat operations to our being there in a peace-keeping mode of operation in support of the rebuilding of Iraq over a period of time. The nature of such operations, as they move from combat into support mode, provides a number of challenges for the Armed Forces in the evolution of the rules of engagement. We need to take into account the challenges that presents, both in how investigations are undertaken and in the support and clarity that needs to be given to our Armed Forces in the field. We need to learn any lessons that emerge from this; but we recognise that this is an evolving situation where we need to adapt and learn from our experiences.
	However, I say as clearly as I can that there has been no aspect of political correctness or political interference in this case. Ministers are not involved in any of this. The process of prosecution is taken by the Army Prosecuting Authority, which is under the control of the Attorney-General. It is independent of the Armed Forces; and it is very important that it is independent and seen to be so. It is important that we are able to say within the Ministry of Defence that any accusations against any of our people are properly investigated by an independent authority and that there is no question of interference by the military. That is absolutely clear.
	In conclusion, I commit to the House to make sure that we give a report on the lessons that we are learning as we learn them. As I said, I will do that within a month.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, first, I declare an interest, in that I appeared for Private Billy Nirney in this case and I am obviously very much constrained in what I can say about the facts of it. The Minister referred to the fact that it was a hostile and volatile situation for those investigating. So it was, and is, a hostile and volatile situation for any group of soldiers sent out to patrol in the Maysan province and other parts of Iraq. I hope that those who are considering future prosecutions will have that very much in mind.
	Further, the rules of engagement to which the Minister referred were at the material time the rules of engagement for the invasion of Iraq, which were to attack and destroy enemy combatants. There were 13 different types of enemy combatants at the time, only two of which wore uniforms. Your Lordships can appreciate the difficulties, then and now, of soldiers being sent out—under the command of and in contact with a commanding officer—into that hostile and volatile situation unable to distinguish who are combatants and who are not, whether they are militias or are under the control of some faction or another in Iraq.
	The weaknesses from which lessons can be drawn are these. First, it is very necessary for the investigating branch of the Military Police to be properly resourced and advised. I hope that the Government and the Attorney-General in particular will take that on board. Secondly, it is equally important to realise that future decisions of the Army Prosecuting Authority will depend on its control of the investigating branch. It is up to it to ensure that all the necessary inquiries are made. In this case, although the Minister said that an individual was dead, no inquiries were made into an exhumation of the body, there was no post mortem, no one saw that the person was actually dead. Thirdly, we look to the future to see how the investigating branches of the Military Police are to be brought together from the three services in the Bill. What steps are being taken to ensure that a fully independent and professional investigating branch is set up in future?

Lord Drayson: My Lords, the noble Lord makes several points relating to the difficulty of the operational environment that our soldiers face. He is absolutely right to do so. We should not underestimate the challenge that they face. However, we should also note that the view of the judge, taking into account all of the aspects mentioned by the noble Lord, was that it was right and proper for the case to be brought. On the point about the failure to identify and exhume the body, noble Lords will wish to know that the family concerned refused the exhumation of the body.
	On the steps to be taken, we accept that there are lessons to be learnt for investigating practices, taking into account the difficult realities on the ground. We are investigating and reviewing those now. Once we have made some interim conclusions on what changes need to be made, I will report those to the House.

Lord Ramsbotham: My Lords, I speak with some deference, having had the honour to hold a commission in the Army for 40 years. Having several times been ordered on operations, we always felt that we did so with the country and cross-party support behind us. Of course we realised that we had to act within the law and that breaches were to be swiftly investigated and we hoped that the emphasis would be on the word "swiftly".
	When on operations, there is nothing worse than having such things hanging over you for a long period of time. Very sadly, that swiftness does not seem to have applied totally to Iraq any more than does feeling that you have the country and cross-party support behind you.
	During the revelations of doubts and the reservations about this war registered by those in high places, such as those in the Guardian today by Sir Christopher Meyer—I exclude from that my noble and gallant friend Lord Boyce who voiced concerns before the war—I wonder how many times the Government thought deeply about the impact on the members of the Armed Forces of what they were being required to do. I found it immensely distressing that we should have witnessed yet another example of apparent disregard on the morale and well-being of our Armed Forces, of whom so much has been demanded and who have been put under such strained resource pressure by this Government.
	Do the Government not worry about statements made in the recent trial by the member of the 3rd Battalion the Parachute Regiment about the effect on his morale and by the Chief of the Defence Staff about the effect on recruitment in the Armed Forces of what has been going on in Iraq? Are the Government happy that members of the Armed Forces, of whom they demand so much and profess to support, should be acquitted after a two-year delay on unsubstantiated charges that were brought as a result of work which I hope every decent person in this country feels thoroughly ashamed; namely, British lawyers touting for anti-Army business in Iraq?
	Do the Government realise that if they continue to commit our Armed Forces to operations where the rules of engagement are so unclear that they result in trials long after the event on ill conceived or bogus charges against their members which are then thrown out, men and women will no longer be so willing to put their lives on the line in the Armed Forces of the Crown—in which so many of us have felt privileged to serve in the past—if they do not feel that the Government will be thoroughly behind them in all that they are required to do in so many places?

Lord Drayson: My Lords, that is not correct. The rules of engagement are clear. Our forces have the full support of this Government. The statement that the noble Lord made about bogus charges is not correct. The judge said that this case was rightly brought. Is the noble Lord suggesting that when charges of this seriousness are brought against a member of the Armed Forces they should not be investigated?

Lord Morris of Aberavon: My Lords, I endorse wholeheartedly the sentiments of the Minister regarding the extremely difficult role of our Armed Forces in Iraq. First, at what level was the decision to prosecute taken? Secondly, was my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General consulted or at least kept informed? Did he have the opportunity to examine not only the quantity of evidence but also, more importantly, its quality? Much of it turned out to be quite appalling. Thirdly, is the heart of the matter the questionable quality of the investigative process by the military and the advice that it gave on witnesses, making all proper allowances for the difficult operation that it had to conduct? Is the Minister and his colleague in the other place a little too complacent? If the Ministry of Defence is right that all was done properly, why did things go wrong at such appalling expense?

Lord Drayson: My Lords, the decision to bring the case was taken by the Army Prosecuting Authority. I say again that the judge, in making his judgment in this case, found that there was no criticism of the decision to bring it forward. In these circumstances, it is important for a case to be brought and for the witnesses then to be taken through the judicial process. In doing so in this case, it was clear that there were issues relating to the statements made by those witnesses and the way in which the investigation was undertaken. However, I shall say one more time that the judge, in reviewing all aspects of this case, came to the conclusion that it was right for the prosecution to be brought.

Lord Boyce: My Lords, I would not like the thought to be left hanging that the Armed Forces believe themselves to be above the law. That is absolutely not the case. I would also not like the perception to be left hanging that the law is carried out within the Armed Forces purely for the benefit of satisfying public morals, if you like. It is equally important that those in the Armed Forces see that justice is done. If there are alleged incidents or cases are brought forward, the people serving in the units want to know that those are properly sorted out. So I have no difficulty at all with a prosecution being brought where there is thought to be a case to answer, both for the benefit of those serving in the units as well as for those outside the Armed Forces.
	However, what I find intolerable is the length of time that it has taken for this case to be brought to court. It is intolerable because of its effect on the people in the unit. They have had to wait for two years before seeing their comrades-in-arms being properly tried and the case being put to bed or otherwise. Can the Minister say something about what will be done to ensure that that sort of delay does not occur in the future?

Lord Drayson: My Lords, I thank the noble and gallant Lord for the points he has made because it is essential for us to stress that, from the point of view of the Armed Forces themselves, it is vital that justice is seen to be done. He also made an excellent point about the length of time that this case has taken and we must look at that. The investigation took 13 months. I have spoken already about the difficult circumstances under which the investigations were undertaken, by the nature of the operations themselves. My understanding is that the work that had to be done relating to the forensic evidence alone took five months to complete. We need to look at what can be done to shorten this time-scale. The uncertainty under which everyone is put contributes to the concern generally relating to this type of situation. It is something we are looking at as part of the review.

Lord Stewartby: My Lords, the Statement repeated for us this afternoon is, I think, the most defensive Statement that I have ever heard in your Lordships' House. What is it that has touched a raw nerve? Can the noble Lord now answer the question asked by my noble and learned friend Lord Morris? Before the decision was taken to go ahead with this case, were the Law Officers consulted?

Lord Drayson: My Lords, the decision to bring the case forward was taken by the Army Prosecuting Authority. The Law Officers were consulted in the bringing of this case. I state again that the decision to bring this case was not criticised by the judge in making his judgment.

Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, can the Minister indicate rather more precisely who is undertaking the review to which he has referred; what precisely are its terms of reference; and whether it will be accountable to the Ministry of Defence or to the Attorney-General, who appears to be responsible for prosecutions brought forward by the military? Will the review cover the procurement of the evidence in this case and why, in the light of the fact that it did take so long and was of questionable quality, the decision was made to proceed with the prosecution?

Lord Drayson: My Lords, the review will seek to learn lessons relating to the investigation that was undertaken. This is a review being carried out by the Ministry of Defence. It purpose is to learn the lessons from this particular case and other cases about the way in which investigations are undertaken in situations such as this.

Lord Ackner: My Lords, I have not yet understood who was responsible for evaluating the quality of the material and why they did it so inadequately.

Lord Drayson: My Lords, the Special Investigation Branch of the Royal Military Police was responsible for the investigation. As to the issues arising from the judgment, we are undertaking the review to understand exactly what lessons can be learnt from this case and to rectify them in the future.

Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, what will happen to the Iraqis who told those lies? For the sake of natural justice, we have a duty of care to the Army, and when servicemen are put in such a situation by people who prove to be totally unreliable—indeed, lying—witnesses, something should surely be done to make it clear that this will not happen again. I find it extremely difficult to believe that the Crown Prosecution Service would ever have brought a case based on such disgracefully flimsy evidence if it had been a civil case. What is the point of our having an entirely admirable system of justice in the Army, a duty of care and operational integrity when it all collapses—I can only say for political reasons—and we are left with people who were unjustly treated for a very long time? What will happen to those who made that possible?

Lord Drayson: My Lords, the military justice system does not have jurisdiction over Iraqi citizens so I presume that the witnesses have returned, or will be returning, to Iraq. I cannot comment further. As regards the bringing forward of the evidence of those witnesses, the process applied mirrored the principles and procedures used within the civilian courts. My understanding is that that was the guidance and basis upon which the witnesses were brought forward in this case.

Lord Waddington: My Lords, the noble Lord has now said that the Attorney-General was consulted in this case and that his advice was sought by the Army Prosecuting Authority. Is that customary? Does that happen in every case? Or did it happen in this case because it was thought special issues were involved?

Lord Drayson: My Lords, I should make it clear that the Attorney-General's advice was not sought. His consent had to be obtained for the prosecution process to be taken forward against those accused who had left the service.

Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, I apologise for missing the Statement but perhaps I may ask a question based upon what the Judge Advocate General said. I am grateful. Did not the Judge Advocate General say of some witnesses who were some distance away from the scene, as reported by the BBC, that they,
	"could not possibly have seen what they said they saw"?
	Will the inquiry announced by the Minister investigate why that purely objective fact was not ascertained before the prosecution was launched?

Lord Drayson: My Lords, I am not aware of the specific point raised by the noble and learned Lord. However, as I have said, the review into the lessons that need to be learnt as regards the process of investigation in this case will take into account all aspects of that investigation. I note the point made by the noble and learned Lord and I will take it back.

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I declare an interest having served for a short time of my life with the Parachute Regiment. At the end of this debate, I should like to hear something positive from Her Majesty's Government. It is quite obvious that the rules of engagement are no longer clear; it is quite obvious—I have been through it—that the Manual of Military Law has been significantly changed and that the lines of command are not as clear as they should be; and it is also quite obvious that the legal processes which have allowed this to happen are bad. What are Her Majesty's Government going to do? What undertaking will the Minister give in regard to correcting this situation? When will he come back to the House to tell us what he has done?

Lord Drayson: My Lords, I cannot accept that summary of the situation. That is not the situation which we face. I have spoken to a number of our troops and, frankly, that is not the impression that I get. The rules of engagement are clear. The issues relating to the effect on morale and the lessons that need to be learnt from this case are being taken on board by the services. I have made a commitment to provide an interim update on the progress of their review to this House. Within a month, I shall do so.
	We really must recognise the challenge that investigations of this nature present for operations. We must recognise the nature of the role that our Armed Forces are undertaking in Iraq and the complexity of the situation that they face. While we need to learn the lessons from this case, the courage and dedication which our Armed Forces have shown in Iraq and the way in which they are helping Iraq move towards a democratic state are admirable, and they should have our full support.

Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill

Second Reading debate resumed.

Lord Carter: My Lords, as we have heard, the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill implements a key part of the Government's rural strategy. We are all aware of the very serious problems that now face agriculture and many aspects of rural life. Some people might say that the proposed bureaucratic untangling and redesign in this Bill come rather in the category of shifting the deckchairs on the "Titanic". I do not agree with this rather cynical view. The Bill is important and, if we can get it right, the new agency and commission will have a vital role to play in dealing with the environmental, social and economic problems of the countryside.
	The Bill is a little unusual in that Clause 2 is a purpose clause. Purpose clauses used to be quite common, but they rather fell out of favour with parliamentary draughtsmen as it was felt that such clauses might introduce a degree of inflexibility of operation and possibly give rise to a judicial review of later actions by government. As a former business manager, I know that they tend also to produce a Second Reading debate in Committee. This view is illustrated by the briefing that we have all received regarding the wording of Clause 2. Should the purpose of Natural England be to "conserve", to "protect" or to "protect and conserve" the natural environment? I am attracted to "protect and conserve" as a general purpose, but the Government made a fair point in response to the comment in the EFRA Select Committee's report; that is, that "protection" could imply that Natural England could not support necessary and desirable progress in developing landscapes—from recreating heath land to reforming the impact of agriculture. This matter, I am sure, will produce an interesting debate in Committee, as will consideration of the Sandford principle, which states that the aim of conserving and enhancing the natural environment should take precedence over all other purposes. At first sight, that also seems an attractive proposition, but, again, as the Government pointed out in their response to the EFRA Select Committee's report, Natural England will have a remit which will extend far beyond designated sites such as national parks and AONB conservation bodies, where the Sandford principles certainly apply. Its remit will cover the majority of England's landmass. Can it be logically argued that the Sandford principle should apply to everything that Natural England will do in such circumstances?
	Time does not allow a detailed consideration of all aspects of this important Bill, but I shall deal briefly with the proposed Commission for Rural Communities and the rather bizarre name of the new agency, Natural England. The new CRC is intended to retain the existing functions of the Countryside Agency which relate to rural advocacy, expert advice on rural matters and acting as an independent watchdog—the so-called "rural proofing" remit. I understand—and I have heard it said in speeches today—that the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats have some reservations about, and indeed oppose, this part of the Bill.
	Having read the debates on the Bill in the Commons, I find their arguments rather confusing. They seem to be saying at the same time that there is no need for the CRC, but that, anyway, it can all be done by local authorities. A number of Opposition speakers in the Commons debates called in aid the original proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, to abolish the Countryside Agency. The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, and the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, made that point earlier. At this point, perhaps I may congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, on her being named Farming Personality of the Year at the Food and Farming Industry Awards last Friday.
	It may be worth quoting what the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, said about the concept of the CRC in his evidence to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee at column 51 on 9 November 2004. He said:
	"I was quite happy to see the policy advisory responsibility of the Countryside Agency continue. The argument was whether that was done through a revised Countryside Agency or through the Rural Affairs Forum. On balance, I think the Government was probably right to go for the Countryside Agency because I think it is more structured to give the sort of policy advice that is necessary".
	So the noble Lord supported the concept of the CRC.
	It flies in the face of reality to assume that local authorities would be able to fulfil the proposed functions of the CRC. We would end up with a patchwork quilt of functions across the country. How on earth could local authorities "rural proof" policies? What body would do that? Who would be the rural advocate with direct access to the Prime Minister? I know that Defra has been mentioned as the right body to rural proof policies, but anyone with any experience of government will know the interdepartmental trading that goes on when policy issues are discussed. Would Defra be expected to rural proof its own policies?
	The 2005 report produced by the CRC, State of the Countryside, is 153 pages of enormously valuable material relating to the social and economic problems of the English countryside. There is also the annual rural proofing report. Perhaps when the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, and the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, reply, they could tell the House who under opposition proposals would be responsible for producing that vital information, who would do the rural proofing and who would be the rural advocate. They could also tell the House which of the nearly 20 organisations that have briefed us support their views on the CRC.
	The Liberal Democrats moved an amendment at Report in the Commons, supported by the Conservatives, to review the operation of the CRC after five years with a view to deciding whether its responsibilities should be transferred to the appropriate local authorities. It may be that the opposition parties have it in mind to move a similar amendment in this House, but I would ask them to think very carefully before they do so. The principal concern that we have all had since the Haskins report in 2003 has been that the expertise in English Nature, the Countryside Agency and the Rural Development Service should not be lost. Those three organisations are in the middle of a period of substantial change, with all that that means for finding and keeping competent staff. I cannot imagine anything more disruptive to the best use of skilled resources than to have a five-year axe hanging over the CRC.
	It is of course entirely right that there should be proper parliamentary scrutiny of the work of the CRC. There is a convention in this House that we have a debate each Session on defence. Perhaps there could be a similar convention with an annual debate on CRC reports on the state of the countryside and rural proofing. That would provide an annual opportunity to examine the work of the CRC. I am sure that my noble friend the Minister is thinking that former Chief Whips go native very quickly.
	Clause 18 sets out the general purpose of the commission and Clause 18(4) requires particular regard to be given to the needs of people in rural areas who are suffering from social disadvantage and economic underperformance. I cannot really imagine that such a function could be carried out effectively by a multiplicity of local authorities, as many of them would have a strong urban bias.
	On the curious name for the new organisation, Natural England, I wonder if it occurred to those who dreamed it up to look at the Oxford English Dictionary for the definition of "natural". The dictionary says:
	"Existing in or derived from nature; not made, caused by, or processed by humankind."
	If anyone thinks that the English countryside, landscape or environment fits that definition, they should remember that the countryside that we enjoy has largely been created by farmers. It is the very reverse of natural, as it was,
	"made, caused by, or processed by humankind".
	The bucolic vision of cows safely grazing means in fact groups of closely bred animals grazing on heavily fertilized leys and giving 5,000 to 6,000 litres of milk per annum or more, which is certainly not natural. The natural yield is probably about 1,000 litres. That lovely field of wheat without a weed to be seen, yielding 8 to 10 tonnes per hectare, is heavily fertilized and treated with pesticide to remove the natural fungi, weeds and insects. The natural yield would probably be less than 4 tonnes per hectare.
	I could multiply the examples many times over.
	Why not just call the new agency the "Commission for the English Rural Environment", to distinguish it from the Commission for Rural Communities? We would then have two agencies with distinct but related titles and functions. Or, perhaps, the "English Rural Environment Commission", which, I admit, has an acronym that sounds rather like "earache". Almost anything would be better than Natural England, which describes the exact opposite of the true function.
	This is an important Bill, and we can look forward to some interesting debates in its latter stages. It deserves the support of the House.

The Lord Bishop of Exeter: My Lords, as a new Member of your Lordships' House, I begin by expressing my appreciation for both the general warmth of welcome and the many specific acts of kindness I have experienced since coming here. I note particularly the unfailing courtesy and assistance I have received from the Officers and attendants of the House.
	It is my privilege to serve the beautiful and largely rural county of Devon, not only as its Bishop, but as the chair of its county strategic partnership. As such, I naturally welcome the intention of this Bill to provide structures that will deliver social justice for all, tackle social exclusion wherever it occurs, and provide fair access to services and opportunities for rural people. However, my experience teaches me that to achieve such laudable aims requires structures that facilitate partnership working not only at the national level, but at a local level too. At present this can be difficult.
	In Hatherleigh, for example—where the cows, whether they look at the clocks or not, produce the best tasting beef in the country—we have recently commenced building the £1.6 million Hatherleigh community and enterprise centre, one of the vanguard projects of the post-foot and mouth recovery plan for that small market town, which was devastated by that crisis. It has taken four years of intensive local community effort, including raising a contribution of £260,000 from the local community itself, to bring it to that point.
	The process has involved successful bids for no fewer than seven separate sources of public funds, all ultimately coming from the ordinary taxpayer: the south-west RDA, European funding through Objective 2, SureStart, Sport England, Devon County Council, West Devon Borough Council and Hatherleigh Town Council. Reconciling the contrasting objectives of these funding bodies within a single coherent project has been an almost full-time occupation for the one community development worker. Moreover, some public bodies have failed to provide funding, and the search is still on for finance to support the renewable energy aspects of this development.
	Will the Bill help to simplify this kind of process? I am concerned that it will reorganise the institutional arrangements at a national and regional level, but perhaps do little to simplify and co-ordinate at the local level. I fully acknowledge that the Government are committed to simplifying rural delivery, but for many in my diocese it is still not clear how this will happen. The workings of the new arrangement will need to be monitored carefully.
	That brings me to the proposed Commission for Rural Communities. The CRC is intended to have an important watchdog and advocacy role. There is a need for a body that can hold the Government to account on the nature of rural policy and the delivery of that policy. Some in my diocese have expressed concerns that this body will lack independence and be largely a creature of Defra and the Government. There is no reason why that should be the case. There are many cases of tough-minded, independent commissions set up by government; the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution and the Sustainable Development Commission are good examples. A robust CRC, with commissioners drawn from the rural communities themselves, as well as from the voluntary sector and from those academic institutions with their fingers on the pulse of rural England, could highlight issues as they emerge in rural areas. But the engagement of those who are actually already deeply involved in rural community development—including, perhaps I may say, the churches—is absolutely vital.
	In the south-west we face a number of key issues relating to the development of rural communities. They are well known: affordable housing; a low-wage, low-skill economy; poor transport connections; and lack of access to modern information technology. The addressing of these issues requires strong partnerships. In Devon, I constantly hear the demand for mechanisms that will build successful and robust partnership between existing rural agencies, the local authorities, the regional development agency, the government office and similar bodies. There is also a demand for mechanisms that will produce strong advocacy, rapidly grab hold of emerging issues and bring them to the attention of departments and Ministers.
	I am aware that the CRC, as a division of the Countryside Agency, has already highlighted to good effect issues surrounding rural disadvantage and housing. With no responsibility for policy delivery, the CRC could be able to roam across a wide range of rural issues. By conducting or commissioning the necessary research, it should support the evidence-based policy that we very much need. But for that to happen, and if the CRC is to come into being, I hope we would all agree that the commission must have robust independence, truly representative membership and resources adequate for the task, and, most of all, enable effective local delivery—especially in the most remote and sparsely populated rural areas of our land.

The Earl of Selborne: My Lords, I know that the whole House will wish to join me in congratulating the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter on his most authoritative and deeply sympathetic speech. With his background of having been a rural priest and now as chair of the Committee of Rural Affairs in the General Synod and member of the Carnegie Commission for Rural Community Development and as Bishop for the Exeter diocese, it is not surprising that he speaks with such authority and deep understanding of the issues facing the grass roots of the rural community. I am sure that many others will be echoing the very sympathetic words that we heard from him throughout the rest of this debate. We hope that we hear from him very frequently in the future.
	I should start by declaring an interest. I was at one time chairman of the Joint Nature Conservation Committee and I am therefore a pensioner of English Nature. Until recently I chaired the South East Rural Affairs Forum, one of the six regional forums set up two or three years ago. I instinctively support any attempt to try to simplify delivery in protecting biodiversity and enhancing the landscape. Therefore, my attitude at first blush to the Bill is to be supportive. I think that many of us who have spoken often about the complicated arrangements for rural delivery must take this opportunity to recognise that the creation of an integrated agency is certainly going to be in the Bill's favour.
	We have a particular responsibility to deliver biodiversity policies as well as landscape policies that deliver social and economic benefits. If the two new non-departmental public bodies can deliver those policies they will have served their purpose. We are, after all, signatories to the Convention on Biological Diversity. We have a great obligation to the rest of the world to demonstrate that although we do not have a lot of biodiversity in this country—which is not our fault but an accident of the ice age; some of our overseas territories the size of the Isle of Wight have more biodiversity than we do in the whole of the United Kingdom—that makes it all the more important that we get our act together and have joined-up policies that address the issue of how to conserve and indeed enhance biological diversity, always remembering the complication that sometimes what we want to do with biodiversity is reduce it, not increase it.
	The moorland, for example, enriched by nitrogen oxides, is producing grasses and the like which is precisely what we do not want. Let us be clear when we talk about biodiversity that it is not always quite as simple as we would like.
	I turn to the real disaster with regard to biodiversity in the United Kingdom. It is not the terrestrial biodiversity which is greatly at risk—whatever you hear about agriculture and the common agricultural policy—it is the marine environment. Throughout Europe, and certainly in our own coastal waters, the marine environment is a disaster area in terms of biodiversity due to overfishing and inappropriate development. Although the Bill sets out to provide a platform for protecting biodiversity, I very much doubt whether the new body will be any different from English Nature. English Nature would agree that it has been hampered by the lack of a marine Bill in delivering the marine protection and enhancement of our biodiversity which is greatly sought. Having said that we should welcome the Bill, we should recognise that until we get the marine Bill we shall still have to explain carefully to those around the world whom we criticise for lack of appropriate biodiversity policies why it is that so much of our own biodiversity in the marine environment is not adequately protected.
	The noble Lord, Lord Carter, anticipated that some of us would be less than enthusiastic about the Commission for Rural Communities. I am enthusiastic about anyone who supports rural causes and rural advocacy. However, I have some concerns—which I have heard expressed—whether that commission will be the organisation which we are looking for to champion the rural cause. When I read in the policy statement on the Bill that it is to,
	"undertake a programme of thematic studies and inquiries, to investigate particular issues affecting rural people",
	I simply say to myself, "Good gracious, yet again. Haven't we done that already? Haven't we had report after report"? We know what is wrong in rural communities. Time and time again we identify the relevant issues that arise from having an overcrowded island whose agenda is usually determined by urban rather than rural interests.
	As I explained earlier, I used to chair the South East Rural Affairs Forum. We dealt with the usual issues that other regions dealt with such as, first and foremost, affordable housing, the difficulty of finding work close to where you might be lucky enough to live in the country, the difficulty of siting your business, lack of transport, lack of shops, the cost of goods in small shops compared to the cost of goods in city centre shops and the lack of access to hospitals and further education. Those are the issues that, surprise, surprise, the thematic studies and inquiries will identify. I echo very much the words of the right reverend Prelate—for goodness sake, let us now start championing people who demonstrate best practice. Let us have a delivery organisation based on local best practice. I believe that is roughly what the right reverend Prelate said and I certainly go along with it. There are people out there with examples of affordable housing—shared equity and the like—who are doing an excellent job. That could be rolled out elsewhere, but you need local involvement and funding; you do not need a talking shop. I am afraid that I see the commission ultimately as a talking shop. I am not saying that something like it is not needed, but I would be much more interested in determining which body will deliver what we seek, how it is to be funded, how it will engage with local communities and how it will be relevant to those people who are at the sharp end of these issues about which we hear so much.
	I share my noble friend's anxiety that the Forestry Authority is rather detached. If you want to demonstrate how rural communities can be self-sufficient, establish combined heat and power plants using local forestry byproducts. That is a demonstration of best practice. The Forestry Authority could demonstrate best practice by showing that its laboratories were heated and powered by its own products. Those are examples of best practice which have been rolled out in small communities elsewhere in Europe. I hope that the Forestry Authority will demonstrate how that is done. The Environment Agency will have to deliver the water framework directive. Stakeholders in each water catchment area will be encouraged to think through the consequences of the sustainable use of water. All those are practical issues which we need to address. I am not entirely sure that the Bill gives us guidance as to how they will be delivered.

The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, I congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter, with whose wise words of wisdom of warning I most heartily agree, on an excellent maiden speech.
	I have considered the Bill, and some parts worry me. I declare an interest as I am married to a farmer, and in my spare time I end up getting dragged in to help with the paperwork, so I would welcome anything that smacked of simplifying the current arrangements for telling those who manage the countryside and the land what to do. I am not sure that the Bill has achieved that. We seem to be getting a new body that will have lots of powers—in some cases greater powers than those of the police when it comes to entry and search—and I am not sure that checks and balances are there, so it does not look too good on those grounds.
	I also looked at Clause 2 on "General purpose" and there are lots of things about the Clause 7 "Management agreements" imposing their will on people managing the land. They are binding on the person who has an interest in the land. It does not say that it is binding on the agency as well and they cannot just get out of their agreement on one side. There is another problem with these binding management agreements driven from the centre. What if they get it wrong?
	The points made by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, at the start of his speech were particularly important. It made me think of the Communications Act, which may seem completely different, but Ofcom has been successful in many ways. As the Communications Act stated in respect of Ofcom, so might this Bill state in respect of Natural England:
	"It shall be the principal duty . . . in carrying out their functions . . . to further the interests of citizens".
	The second part might be "to further the interests of land managers in ensuring that the natural environment is conserved". At the end of the day, it is not the agency that will be carrying it out; it is the people who manage the land. You need to worry about that. Then there are the general purposes of protecting biodiversity and so on.
	The Communications Act has another provision which this Bill should have—because all agencies should be transparent. Section 3(3) of the Act states:
	"In performing their duties under subsection (1) , OFCOM must have regard, in all cases, to . . . the principles under which regulatory activities should be transparent, accountable, proportionate, consistent and targeted only at cases in which action is needed; and . . . any other principles appearing . . . to represent the best regulatory practice".
	Those are good safeguards to have in such a Bill, where we are putting all our eggs in one basket.
	I am also worried about the powers. Clause 8 covers compulsory purchase to carry out experiments. How about returning the land to the people who owned it previously if the experiment has failed or the land is no longer needed afterwards? The Government did that after the Second World War when they had to appropriate land, and it would be fair in this instance to do the same. We have seen compulsory purchases, and we have seen some of the letters that local authorities are sending out already when you have problems with builders trying to repair your houses, which you may have tenanted normally. Local authorities may threaten compulsorily to purchase them—under the Housing Act that was recently passed. They are already sending out rude letters, and you cannot help it if the builders do not perform. We must be careful about powers being misused.
	The Bill is supposed to result in fewer inspections. I am delighted with that idea, but will there be fewer inspections? Will there be fewer inspectors? I doubt it, because Natural England is taking on some of the jobs of the RDS; presumably some of the issues under the Countryside Stewardship and Environmentally Sensitive Area Schemes. But presumably the mapping functions—the RPA and RLR functions—will stay with Defra, which means that all the measuring and that part of the inspection will stay over there. I do not think that the agency will take on all the farming cross-compliance under the single farm payment, probably only the environmental part of it. In that case, Defra will still be doing that work, which means that NVZs and pollution inspections will still be done there. You must watch out for inspectors coming along with other powers.
	I have seen an NVZ inspection take place where a chap took away computer printouts on the amount of nitrogen, which is what he should have been there to worry about. He then went and inspected the farmyards and when he looked at the diesel bunds he did not happen to like the way that they had been built—up to insurance company specifications two years earlier—and he said that he wanted electric motors and all sorts of different things.
	Ten thousand pounds later, someone said, "But if you'd been across the border, next door in Cambridgeshire, they don't insist on that at all. They just point out that it's an insurance risk and that you could get fined and locked up". You will still have those problems. The health and safety inspectors will still come along. If you run a medium-sized arable farm, you will have 150 tonnes of fertiliser, so you will still have the fire brigade and police inspections. If you have animals, you will still have all those inspections as well. I am not sure how the Bill will reduce the number of inspectorates.
	It is the land managers who will have to pay for all this biodiversity and everything like that. What worries me is the cost, because we need to get money out to the sharp end—to the coal face. How many employees will this agency inflate itself to? How many employees are already in Defra and all the other agencies and departments that will be there behind it? Someone has to pay for all this biodiversity. In the CAP funding debate, the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, said that nowadays to farm or manage land you must have an outside source of income. That was perfectly true; I heartily agree and have always believed that such income has to be necessary and has been throughout the ages. But people do not realise that, and think there is a bottomless pit of money that they can drain to fund their wildest schemes. We have to be careful of that. I hope that the agency will have a lot of balance and common sense, and will take into account the financial needs and sustainability of its proposals for the rural environment in future.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Earl, Lord Erroll. Debates such as today's gain immensely from Cross-Bench participation.
	The German scholar Wilamowitz once asked his Oxford contemporary Cyril Bailey what a spoonerismus was. Bailey, replying in Latin, answered with a Horatian echo, "transponendarum litterarum curiosa felicitas"—a curious felicity in transposing letters. One of Warden Spooner's own mangled texts—
	"We are all but as clay in the ponds of the hatter"—
	would serve us admirably today, not least on a Bill that the consenting parties are already describing as a NERC Bill, a transposition of letters that recalls the old acronym for the Natural Environment Research Council.
	I should declare four relatively de minimis interests—first, as a former Minister for the NERC that I have just mentioned; secondly, as a life member of the Wiltshire Wildlife Trust; thirdly, as a vice-chairman of the All-Party Group on Wildlife and Conservation; and, finally, as a vice-president of the London Wildlife Trust, an office I hold representing my party in Parliament. The latter is perhaps the most relevant to mention in the context of the Bill, as it underscores the Bill's urban perspective. One of my most satisfactory achievements in the other place was to play a reasonably salient role in securing large-scale charitable funding to computerise the London trust's biodiversity base.
	The Bill and its consenting parties exude harmony—even trust. I cite as an index of the latter an egregious spelling mistake in their joint briefing, which implies that the three merging bodies were content to use one proof-reader rather than two or three. However, what is not clear from either the Bill or the consenting parties' briefing is the nature of the chemistry between them. Too many mergers fail because of transplant rejection; I speak as one who, once upon a time, was the nation's first ever headhunter. Natural selection also applies to mankind.
	I am delighted to learn implicitly from the consenting parties' briefing that the new organisation will be well resourced. That will make it the envy of its conservationist confreres at English Heritage, whose funding slips further and further down the list of DCMS priorities. I am however concerned that, too often, the furtherance of conservation in the Bill is subject to those hoary old words, "have regard to"—that most facile of amulets against judicial review—and that there is insufficient reference to necessary action. Clause 1 tells us that:
	"Except where otherwise expressly provided, Natural England's functions are exercisable in relation to England only".
	I hope that the West Lothian question will not prevent Scottish Peers drawing attention to Section 1(1) of the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004, which requires every public body,
	"to further the conservation of biodiversity".
	I also hope that the application of regionality in the Bill will be highlighted in Committee. Much of regional policy in England, especially after the fig-leaf of referendums was ripped aside on 4/11 last year, is conducted through shadowy and insubstantial bodies, among which the environment has difficulty in asserting its importance. It is mildly ominous that one of the Secretary of State's statutory, rather than permissive, roles in Clause 15(1) is that he must give Natural England guidance as to the exercise of any of its functions that relate to or affect regional planning and associated matters.
	The subject of climate change will occupy your Lordships' House on Thursday, when we shall judge the Bill retrospectively on its relevance. Some of us have had our knuckles rapped in the past for going on about housing in the flood plains, but this very weekend has seen insurance companies warning that in future cover may not be sustained in areas vulnerable to flooding.
	On rights of way, I echo my noble friend Lady Byford. A bridle path in the next parish to our own in Wiltshire is under threat. In the short time since I took an interest in the matter, the number of applications to the county council has leapt from 87 to more than 150. Can the Minister tell us whether local authorities are being given any extra resources to cope with this separate version of flooding, or will the council tax payer be expected to meet the bill? In the same spirit, when we come to deal with invasive non-native species, will the Minister be prepared in Committee to tell us what his noble friend Lord Whitty, whom I see in his place and to whom I express no disrespect, declined to do on the Hunting Bill—namely, the Government's intentions towards the control of wild mink, which have practically eliminated the English water vole?
	As to guidance and directions, the latter of which in Clauses 15 and 16 are described by the consenting parties as a "last resort", my mind goes back to a British employee going out to run the Australian operations of a multinational company, whose boss at headquarters told him, "I shall not interfere; I hope I shall not have to intervene". Is the general language of these clauses legislative boiler-plate or does it envisage particular contingencies? The issue is at the very heart of independence.
	In the same vein, I am less sanguine than the consenting parties that there are not contradictions in the general purposes expressed in Clause 2(2). In the Barker report debate last year, I alluded to the six households on our lane in Wiltshire, two miles from the nearest shop. Five of the six are permanently resident. The sixth house was then rented out to a London family, who were occasional visitors. They were understandably absent during the foot and mouth crisis, during which our own two dogs, apart from using our small orchard for exercise, were for three months confined to walks on leads on tarmac. Within an hour of the London family arriving for their first visit since the crisis broke, they went straight into the fields with their dog. On having reality gently pointed out to them, they said that there were no notices and they could not be supposed to know.
	I suspect that the Bill underestimates how far ignorance of town about country will prevent recreation going wholly harmoniously hand in hand with conservation. I remember the Greater London Authority Bill in another place and asking Glenda Jackson, the Minister, what would happen if the multitude of mayoral strategies that the Bill laid down were in conflict with each other. "Oh, but the Bill won't let them be", she said.
	West Wiltshire has lots of footpaths and bridleways. On one such last spring, a Defra notice commended the welfare of ground nesting birds on the set-aside where the bridleway ran. The aim was commendable but, unless you closed the bridleway, frankly it was academic. It is on such points of detail that I hope the Committee stage of the Bill will properly fasten.

Lord Haworth: My Lords, I greatly welcome the Bill. I am sure that the independent integrated agency, Natural England, bringing together, as it does, the functions of English Nature and some of the functions of the Countryside Agency and the Rural Development Service, will be better placed than the previous bodies to have care for conserving, enhancing and managing England's natural environment for the benefit of current and future generations.
	It is hoped and expected that Natural England will be a powerful organisation and will strongly champion the cause of access and recreation, alongside its work in promoting nature conservation, protecting biodiversity and conserving and enhancing the landscape.
	I strongly support the representations of the Ramblers' Association, among others, in stressing the importance of access and recreation in the countryside and wishing these aspects to have equal weighting with the other purposes of Natural England, as set out in Clause 2. Natural England should be able to exercise significant power to bring to bear on those local authorities that fail in their statutory duties to maintain access on public rights of way, as well as being able to provide incentives for those wishing to improve. Access is fundamental to the social and economic health of rural areas, a fact which was clearly illustrated during the foot and mouth crisis. I hope the Minister will be able to assure the House that the Government recognise the importance of that issue and that, in setting the framework for Natural England, it will be emphasised. I am encouraged in this regard by his announcement earlier that Sir Martin Doughty is the chairman-designate. I am sure that this appointment will be well received.
	One other aspect of the Bill that I would particularly like to raise, to which a number of noble Lords have already referred, is the vexed issue of the increasing degradation of green lanes. I have received extensive briefing from many organisations in advance of this debate—far too many to mention. I take the points made by the Green Lanes Protection Group particularly seriously, however. Well before it contacted me, I was aware from my own experience of walking in the countryside, and the experience of friends who live in some of the worst affected areas—Wiltshire, Hampshire and Dorset come most readily to mind—of the exponential growth of motor vehicles using green lanes. These issues were well rehearsed when the Bill was being considered in another place, and I am glad to say that representations to do something about the problem came from across the political spectrum.
	The Government have addressed this problem in Part 6 of the Bill, the purpose of which is to limit those vehicular rights that can be recorded on English and Welsh local authorities' definitive maps and statements showing public rights of way. It does this by halting implied creation of rights of way for mechanically propelled vehicles, preventing post-1930 use of a way by a mechanically propelled vehicle giving rise to any future public right of way and, subject to certain exceptions, extinguishing existing public rights of way for mechanically propelled vehicles if those rights of way are not already recorded on the definitive map and statement.
	That is excellent and very important. There are many who believe that the opportunity should now be taken for the issue of existing rights which are recorded on the map, but are now being abused by "recreational" mechanically propelled vehicles, to be revisited on the overriding grounds of environmental considerations. The Minister is, I know, aware of the sensitivity of this subject.
	The Minister will also be aware that there are now a huge number of claims, mostly very recent, which have been submitted to the relevant authorities. There is every expectation that the claims will continue to multiply even while the Bill is under consideration in your Lordships' House. It has been suggested that such claims could take up to 20 years to process. It would be a tragedy of the greatest proportions, and the damage to the environment would be most severe—to say nothing of the shattering of the peace and quiet of the countryside and the danger to residents and visitors alike—if the use of these green lanes by motorised vehicles is allowed to continue until such claims are heard. They are claims, nothing more. Many are completely preposterous.
	It is not a matter of human rights, or retrospection. It is certainly not a matter of access. It is, however, a matter of the practice, if not intent, of elevating one use of a byway above all others, to their effective exclusion. Walkers cannot walk, horse riders cannot ride and people and wildlife alike are endangered by the use of 4x4s, motorbikes, quad bikes and the like on green lanes. The lanes are churned up and ruined, often irreparably. That that should be allowed to happen in national parks, SSSIs, AONBs and so on is incomprehensible to most people, and the problem worsens daily.
	It is imperative that the provisions come into force at the earliest possible moment, ideally the date of the Bill's publication. If that is not possible, surely it is not asking too much for the enactment of the legislation to coincide with its Royal Assent. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure the House on that point when he shortly reveals the text of the amendments promised in the debate in the other place.

Earl Peel: My Lords, I welcome the main thrust of the Bill, particularly the amalgamation of English Nature and the bulk of the Countryside Agency. In so doing I declare an interest as a landowner in the north of England and an ex-member of the English Nature council. I hope that the combined package will provide a more efficient, streamlined and cost-effective body that will command the respect of rural communities and provide a forum by which environmental policies can be delivered in partnership between those with a statutory responsibility for carrying out such duties and those on the ground who must make them work in practice.
	In passing, I am bound to say that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carter, that the name Natural England is what I might describe as somewhat naff. Given that the English countryside is one of the finest examples of man's endeavours, notwithstanding the problems and challenges that we all face, there is very little of the natural about it.
	The real theme of my contribution revolves around Clause 2 and the general purposes of Natural England. Although I support the formation of this large new statutory body, with its new size will come additional responsibilities, and with those will come an even greater need for sensitivity and the requirement to carry the respect of those whose hopes and aspirations will be affected by the actions of such a body.
	Clause 2 covers the general purposes of Natural England, which broadly concerns the promotion of nature conservation, access and the enhancement of landscape—all perfectly desirable objectives. However, paragraph (2)(e) talks about,
	"contributing in other ways"—
	whatever that means—
	"to social and economic well-being through management of the natural environment".
	That appears to demonstrate an inherent assumption that management of the natural environment automatically delivers social and economic benefits, whereas in practice it will depend on how the land is managed and what other factors are taken into consideration. As the Country Land and Business Association, in which I declare an interest as a member, put it,
	"for Natural England to succeed in achieving its environmental objectives—which must be its priority"—
	everybody agrees with that—
	"it is essential that it works in partnership with land managers and with the grain of rural business".
	I entirely subscribe to that view, for there is no point in attempting to drive forward environmental and nature conservation objectives if, in the process, the future of the individual or the enterprise is undermined to the extent that no one can deliver the original objectives. As the noble Lord, Lord Bach, said, often we are talking about small, vulnerable businesses; we must take that into consideration.
	To that end, therefore, I feel that the Bill and Natural England's position would be enhanced if it had, as part of its remit, an obligation to have regard to the social and economic well being of those who live and work in rural areas. I appreciate the scepticism demonstrated by my noble friend Lord Brooke about the term "have regard to" but I believe that it is appropriate in this case.
	I am fully aware that some conservation bodies argue that there are already sufficient government-funded bodies with an economic brief and that it is vital that we have a strong independent statutory body to champion the environment. I agree with that, but such bodies usually have an environmental duty within their statute, as is the case, for example, with the regional development agencies, which have to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development within the UK. So I see no logical reason why Natural England should not have a similar requirement to take heed of the rural economy when making its deliberations but which would not undermine its principal objectives. It would simply ensure that some form of equilibrium was maintained. Surely that is what joined-up government means.
	Before discussing the Commission for Rural Communities, I should like to say something about Clause 3, which requires Natural England to discharge its functions having regard to the common standards established under Clause 4. The common standards guidance for SSSIs is produced by the JNCC, and it is on the back of that guidance that Natural England will carry out its monitoring of such sites, make its environmental assessments and ultimately produce its management plans. From my experience of actively managing part of a moorland SSSI, I am bound to say that this process is far from satisfactory. I will not go into detail, but there appears to be no opportunity for consultation between the JNCC and practitioners on the ground, or their representative organisations, before the common standard guidance is produced.
	Furthermore, the criteria on which such guidance is produced appear to contain a rather high degree of hypothetical theory. Indeed, I asked one English Nature scientist to give me the basis on which a management plan was based, and he replied, "Ecological instinct". With the best will in the world, that is not good enough.
	While on this theme, we should not lose sight of the fact that the CROW Act demands that a VAM—views about management—is to be produced by English Nature on every SSSI prior to January next year, so once again I find myself wondering with some degree of trepidation on what criteria these will be based. It strikes me as odd that views on management can be produced without consulting the manager.
	I am aware that there is some scepticism about the future role of the Commission for Rural Communities, but I take the view that, provided that the rural advocate is properly focused on assessing, advising and, where necessary, criticising government performance in relation to rural England, it could have a useful role. It is important that it does not end up as a moribund research organisation simply undertaking endless surveys and academic studies that gather dust in some departmental corner. The Government must expect Parliament to be given direct access to the commission, and its reports should be debated in both Houses of Parliament, thus giving it the credit it deserves. Only time will judge its effectiveness, but the ingredients are there if they are used effectively.
	I particularly welcome Clause 58, which removes the expenditure constraints on national park authorities with regard to their duties to foster the economic and social well being of their local communities. This dovetails with my previous comments about economic development being an essential plank for a healthy rural economy from which sound environmental goals can be achieved.
	Finally, I have a quick word on the additional enforcement powers afforded to wildlife inspectors under Clause 51. These powers will be greatly enhanced, and there is deep concern that they go too far. It is to be regretted that there was no formal consultation on this proposal. I have no difficulty with the principle, providing that such individuals are fully trained in the same way as, for example, trading standards officers or environmental health officers who belong to professional bodies and are subjected to three years' training. I am bound to say that, to date, the record of such individuals is mixed, to say the least, as they sometimes tend to be rather over-enthusiastic in their determination to bring a prosecution. This is an emotive subject, so it is essential that the legislation is properly drafted to ensure that professionalism and fairness prevail.
	This is a large bill, and it is easy to get carried away by any one of its many clauses and schedules. What I hope for is an improved system of environmental and wildlife delivery, based on a healthy respect between the public and private sectors. Both have their part to play, but this system can work effectively only if there is genuine consultation and respect on both sides and a mutual understanding of each other's aims and objectives. There is still much to do in this respect.

Lord Cameron of Dillington: My Lords, I, too, congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter on his maiden speech. He and I have worked together on regional and rural issues in the south-west. I know that he will continue to contribute wisely, as he has done today, to the work of this House.
	First, I declare an interest as a past rural advocate and as an ex-chairman of the Countryside Agency, as well as being a farmer and landowner. Secondly, let me say how much I welcome the Bill. It will, I hope, bring to an end a very long period of uncertainty for all the bodies involved—a period now of some years of what I would call distracting change management, which I believe has taken everyone's mind off the agenda. I hope that we can ensure a speedy resolution of that uncertainty.
	I should like primarily to touch on two areas of controversy which arose during the Bill's passage in the other House. First, there is the statutory purpose of Natural England. This body now has to consider people and communities as well as the environment. Its remit includes access to the countryside, responsibilities for the broad sustainable management of designated areas as well as the ongoing need to understand the practicalities of making a living off the land while at the same time protecting the natural environment. Personally, I think that this broad agenda is a good thing. Nothing to my mind has done more to bring the environment into mainstream thinking than the sustainable development agenda. It is only by making the environment relevant to people's lives, socially and economically, that it gets their backing and their votes.
	Thus I believe that the principles of sustainable development—economic, social and environmental—should be spelt out slightly more clearly in Clause 2. However, I can see why the Government do not want to go there and why they have avoided a conflict resolution clause. Our man-made countryside, as others have referred to it, has always been the result of conflict and changing need. I believe that it is right that these conflicts should continue to occur on the Natural England board, without Defra or the Bill setting out how it should respond. Each conflict will have its own solution with decisions quite often being taken on a localised basis.
	The real debate here of course should be about Schedule 1 and the appointments to the Natural England board. This board must not be made up predominantly of environmentalists and scientists. It must include land managers, access representatives, national park or AONB managers, community leaders and so on. If it is to be a truly effective environmental body it will need to be able to relate to and work in partnership with the groups I have just mentioned, and it is crucial that the board is able to help forge and maintain those partnerships. I hope that the Government can give us some assurances about the make-up of the Natural England board.
	Turning to another issue that arose in the Commons, I would like to underline the crucial importance of the Commission for Rural Communities—the CRC. It is vital that this body exists to carry out research and to speak out strongly—I emphasise the latter part—on behalf of those who live in our countryside, particularly the less well off who might otherwise have no real voice within the system.
	Will rural quality of life be properly catered for by the urban-focused resources of the Department of Health, the Department for Work and Pensions, the Department of Trade and Industry and so on? Can we even rely on the largely urban-based staff of Defra? Can we trust the all-too-often urban-centric local authorities and RDAs?
	I heard last week that the new in-phrase is to refer to the "city region", meaning that the best way to deliver the regional agenda is to focus largely on the main city or cities within that region. One can only assume that under this philosophy the rural areas go hang.
	I believe that a nationally based, independent voice for the countryside is now more important than ever. There is a school of thought that this independent voice could be represented by local authorities. Even on a local basis, apart from one or two notable exceptions, I am not certain whether they have a very good record in this field. All too often the majority urban members do not really understand rural problems, do not give them priority and, without really meaning to, tend to hijack the allocation of resources to the urban problems.
	Meanwhile, of course no local authority can possibly act as a nationally based rural watchdog—carrying out national research and providing national proof to government that such an issue is not simply a local problem. When I was a rural advocate the rural commission of the Local Government Association often used to lobby me to make the case for the countryside on issues it felt were important, but where it was constrained by the urban majority of LGA members. It was always grateful that the Countryside Agency was able to take its local issues and put them authoritatively on to the national governmental radar screen. The CRC's role in that respect would, I believe, be enhanced by the fact that it is not a delivery body. It does not any more have to be part of the solution, unlike local authorities.
	The other school of thought is that the work of the CRC should be done by Defra. But how many civil servants would reckon that it was part of their job to stand up and name or shame other departments, or even other Ministers? It just could not be part of their job spec to take a publicly independent line and to speak out and not to take "No" for an answer.
	Funnily enough, there was much discussion in the Commons about the independence of Natural England—as there has been today—but to me it is the independence of the CRC that is really important. I am glad that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter supported me on that. The CRC has to goad. It has to probe. It has to get under the skin of government at all levels—from central, through regional to local. We need a nationally based body more than ever now to challenge others, or to champion others on rural issues and one that is capable of rural-proofing every aspect of our life.
	The countryside is going through a period of great change. Over 100,000 people move from our towns to the countryside every year. The rural population is growing at three or four times the rate of urban Britain. Farming plays less and less part in the rural economy and rural employment. More and more high-tech businesses are choosing to base themselves in the countryside and the growing and ageing population there depend more and more on efficient service delivery, which, by its very nature, has to be approached differently from delivering to the towns. Meanwhile, under this Government, the main delivery bodies, such as the health service, the education service and its agencies such as Connexions and the Learning and Skills Council, the business links, the police, the job centres and so on, seem to be undergoing permanent restructuring and change. Even the local authorities do not escape. Last year there were local public service agreements and this year there are the local area agreements. There seems to be an obsession with continuous change.
	My point is that amidst the chaos that these changes engender—and in some cases it really is chaos—never has a national rural proofing body and a rural advocate been more needed to ensure that centralists and centrally based planners, with, frankly, no concept of life in the countryside, do not leave the less well off people in rural England as second-class citizens. The CRC will not have an easy task—believe me, I know—but I hope it will have the support of this House.
	Finally, I, among others, look forward to seeing the Government's promised amendments to Part 6 to ensure immediate commencement, without exemptions, of those clauses concerning mechanically propelled vehicles on rights of way.

Lord Plumb: My Lords, I join my noble friend Lord Selborne and others who have said how much they welcome the contribution made in this debate by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter. It was indeed a contribution which came from the heart and an understanding of the problems we face.
	We are very fortunate in your Lordship's House to have such contributions from the bishops. I remember a while ago one bishop, who came from the south-west, saying, "Yes, the situation in farming is so desperate at the moment, that they really do need—as they have said so often—a level playing field. At the moment they need a level praying field". That was said, I know, with some feeling.
	I declare my interests as a farmer involved in many rural organisations, and as a past president of the Cotswolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), which is equally as beautiful as the south-west, now of course the Cotswolds Conservation Board. It has proved itself in its work during the past five years in an area that covers the vast rural area from Bath up to the Warwickshire border. In its reports of restoration work in that area, it has proved the benefit of its effort to restore important grassland sites, in training and restoration of dry stone walling, of landscape character assessments and of farming studies. Above all, it has created a partnership with many organisations and local authorities. It is an example of the dedication of much voluntary work, especially from voluntary wardens, who are themselves country people who understand the importance of land management and wildlife. As my noble friend Lord Selborne said earlier, it is an example of the need for best practice.
	If, therefore, Natural England, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said, is a strange name, is to streamline the functions of the present component agencies as set out in Clause 2, is the ultimate intention to try to include all bodies concerned with environmental issues, including the work of local authorities in that area? Will it really lead to a better focused source of land management advice for government and its agencies, as well as its primary customers, operating more efficiently and cutting costs, or will the integrated agency become yet another layer of bureaucracy and expense, which the countryside can ill afford? Already, we have an army of advisers ready to move in to help the farmer or those who are concerned with country affairs.
	Like others, I have many doubts, which will come up in Committee, about many of the provisions in various chapters, including those in Part 3 concerning wildlife and pesticides. In Part 8, I ask what is really meant by "flexible administrative arrangements". That could mean anything to anyone.
	I also hope that in his reply the Minister can reassure your Lordships that all representative interests will be consulted before proposed change orders are made. In his opening statement, the Minister referred to that point and said that it is intended that stakeholders, who have already been consulted as the Bill has been drafted, will be consulted again before the final draft is agreed.
	So, as a countryman, I hope that I may be forgiven for believing that, in the past, too much policy-making by government has been conducted with a strong bias towards urban citizens. We need a Commission for Rural Communities with a strong and independent voice for rural people represented by rural people. The much improved relationship between conservation advisers and land managers depends entirely on close contact. Farmers, for example, need assurances that the advice that they receive on SSSIs and the management of such from English Nature will not be subject to charges in future.
	There is concern that Natural England will not realise its full potential for delivery through its proposed two boards while still focusing on its own internal structure. If the object of the exercise is to follow the proposals for simplification so rightly proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, the Bill must make it clear that the agency will be the chief adviser on policy for the natural environment across government activity as a whole and Ministers must have due regard to its advice. There is concern about Clause 14, which provides for the Secretary of State to grant aid Natural England, enabling the Secretary of State to influence how it should be spent.
	An example of some of the problems comes from the Cotswolds. Provisions are intended to ensure that the electricity distribution companies are required to have regard to AONB purposes but fail, as the border is crossed, to require the same of British Telecom. In that area, planning authorities required a developer to underground the wirescape but, when it crossed the boundary, BT insisted on wires going overground via poles. That is one of those silly illustrations, an example of the sort of thing that makes nonsense of the work being undertaken at present. I hope that that can be improved. That is a landscape benefit lost.
	Finally, Clause 2 proposes that the agency should have a general purpose of ensuring that the natural environment is conserved, enhanced and managed. The general purpose focuses solely on conservation and is silent on the agency's importance as an adviser. If it is to be a strong and independent voice, surely it should be made much clearer that its responsibility is to advise on policy for the natural environment across all government activities and that Ministers must have due regard to its advice. It must be more, not less, independent. I hope that its main function will make the countryside free from more bureaucracy and red tape.

Baroness Young of Old Scone: My Lords, I speak today as president of a wildlife trust, vice-president of the RSPB and as a former chairman of English Nature. Those of your Lordships who have been around for some time and have long memories—a characteristic of your Lordships' House—will recall that on two previous occasions a similar merger of English Nature and the Countryside Agency or the Countryside Commission has been proposed. On both those occasions, I must confess that I—and several others—fought like tigers to prevent such a merger because we were concerned that the interests of wildlife and conservation would be submerged in a bigger body.
	I am a turncoat and today support the Bill and the creation of Natural England as an organisation whose time has now come. The organisation will have the scale, working shoulder to shoulder with the Environment Agency—I should declare an interest as chief executive of the Environment Agency—to be an effective champion for wildlife and landscape and for their enjoyment as a vital part of the rural economy.
	Although I support the Bill and the creation of Natural England, I am keen to obtain reassurances on two points if I am to support the new body wholeheartedly. I mentioned the argument that this will create a body with sufficient scale to be an effective champion. Natural England will be blessed with considerable spending power in the form of the agri-environment funding and will use that to achieve benefits for biodiversity, landscape and natural resource protection. I make no bones about the fact that when my noble friend Lord Haskins was writing his report, I expended considerable time and blandishment on him to try to persuade him to give agri-environment funding to the Environment Agency.
	My noble friend Lord Haskins said that he had listened to my arguments and gave me his understanding. But, alas, it was not his understanding that I was looking for, it was his money, and we did not get that.
	It is fundamental for the future that those agri-environment funds, which Natural England will control, need to deliver not only for the objectives of biodiversity, landscape, access and recreation laid out in the Bill, but also for the Environment Agency's objectives of protecting the natural resources of air, land and water. I hope that the Minister can give reassurance that Natural England will be given clear guidance on using the substantial agri-environment funding—currently, in excess of £300 million—to deliver across both its and the Environment Agency's objectives.
	The second area where I seek reassurance has already been raised. I am afraid that I rarely disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, but I do on this occasion. Clause 2 lays out clear purposes for Natural England. They are well written, distinctive and complementary to the purposes of the Environment Agency, which was a concern in early drafts of the Bill. I am grateful to the Minister for the clarity which emerged in successive drafts. The Bill gives Natural England a clear primary purpose to conserve, enhance and manage the natural environment and, thereby, contribute to sustainable development. It then elaborates those into five elements, which it is not beyond the bounds of possibility could come into conflict. Although the conflicts between the elements of the Natural England purpose should be rare, I hope that during the passage of the Bill we can have reassurance that in those very few cases where there is a conflict—say, between access duties and the protection of priority species, sites and habitats or important landscapes—the first two elements in the list of five of the Natural England purpose should have precedence; namely, those that cover biodiversity and landscape.
	Why should those two elements have priority? Although people who live in rural communities might not believe it, on looking at the history of the English countryside over the past 200 years, generally, social and economic issues have taken precedence. As a result of built development, changes in agricultural practices, impacts—including pollution from economic activity and the growth of our settlements—and the increase of our road system, wildlife has dramatically reduced in numbers and extent. According to the Government's published figures in the biodiversity action plan and progress reports, quite a number of our most important habitats—salt marshes, reed beds, wet meadows, flower-rich meadows, heathlands and good-quality upland habitat—have been reduced to tiny percentages of their former extent—in some cases to less than 10 per cent—and, in some habitats, to less than 1 per cent of their previous extent. Many of our priority species of birds, plants, fish and mammals are reduced to tiny populations that are often beleaguered in open air zoos that we call nature conservation protected sites, which will be under pressure from development, recreational pressures and, increasingly, climate change.
	I believe that history speaks for itself. Despite the protection given through the national protected site series—the sites of special scientific interest, the special areas of conservation and the special protection areas—and much of the effort put into the biodiversity action plan, we have not seen the restoration of both threatened populations and threatened habitats to anything remotely approaching their former extent. Much of our wildlife is drinking in the Last Chance saloon. Indeed, the extent and quality of landscape outside national parks and AONBs is often similarly threatened. So there is a real, evidence-based case for the priorities of biodiversity and landscape being the principal ones for Natural England.
	I thank the Minister for his commitment today to Natural England being a trenchant champion for the environment. In another place, much stress was placed on the vision and judgment of the chairman and the board of Natural England. I very much welcome the appointment of Sir Martin Doughty as chairman. But chairmen do not last for ever, although I earnestly hope that Sir Martin will, and the board is yet to be appointed. We need firmer assurances from the Minister in the specific area of conflict between the purposes of English Nature, so that when push comes to shove—to use a technical term—important biodiversity and landscape will take priority. I stress the word, "important". I am not talking about every occasion, every sparrow, every view, or every urban green space having to obtain prior consideration, but, in broad terms, about the sorts of minimal priorities that were laid out in the biodiversity action plan by the Government.
	I will finish with another issue that, again, has been touched on by many of your Lordships; that is, the impact of some sorts of recreation on biodiversity and landscape and their quiet enjoyment. I welcome the assurances made by the Minister about mechanically propelled vehicles and the Government's commitment to addressing that issue. But biodiversity and landscape, and the quiet enjoyment of the natural environment, can be vulnerable to other forms of open-air recreation. There needs to be clarity from the Government that in such disputes Natural England will take the role of championing the natural environment. There is considerable evidence that in some circumstances access, disturbance and recreation can damage biodiversity and landscape. Again, if push comes to shove, there is always somewhere else to go for recreation. But once biodiversity and landscape has been damaged or gone, most often it cannot be reconstituted.
	I hope that in the years to come we can look back on the provisions of this excellent Bill and the creation of a powerful force in Natural England for the natural environment. I would simply close in pondering on the name of the body that several of your Lordships have undertaken. In the early stages, there was a proposal that we should perhaps call it the "Natural" Environment Agency, which I can assume was only to distinguish it from the concept of the "Unnatural" Environment Agency.

Viscount Eccles: My Lords, for my sins I have been the chairman of one non-departmental public body, the deputy-chairman of a second and the chief executive officer of a third. I should like to pursue a point that has been raised by many noble Lords, including, notably, my noble friend Lord Brooke, on independence—in particular, for Natural England with its 2,300 employees. Indeed, we have had another assurance from the Minister that it will be powerful and independent. I would like to look at that proposition from the point of view of the staff. What do they see as they read the Bill?
	The staff will first see that it is a wholly grant-aided body. The Secretary of State can fix the grant as she thinks fit. Of course, the staff will be aware that behind the Secretary of State lies the Treasury. There is an annual round and they will remember that he who pays the piper tends to call the tune. Secondly, they will look at the provisions for the appointment of the board. The Secretary of State will appoint the chairman, may appoint a deputy chairman and will appoint the other six to 13 members of the board. Currently, there is no term of appointment in the Bill and those members may or may not be reappointed. Of course, the Secretary of State is also taking a power to change the number of the members of the board, which could be useful in troublesome times.
	The staff will see that not only the board but also they—the staff—will have their pay—their remuneration—determined by the Secretary of State. It will not be a matter of proposals being put forward, as has often been the case with NDPBs, for approval by the Secretary of State, but straight determination. I am not concerned today to argue that all of those arrangements are bad or, indeed, good, but simply to try to throw light on the proposition that this body is independent and powerful.
	The staff will also see that there are the usual powers for the Secretary of State to make orders by statutory instrument, which are of course subject to parliamentary scrutiny, as well as powers to give approvals and take initiatives. But Clause 15 goes on to state that the Secretary of State has a duty to give Natural England "guidance" on its functions, and that the body must pay attention to such guidance. There is to be consultation, but the staff may ask, "Where is the leverage when the consultation takes place? Are we really independent?". I suppose that independence does have to mean being independent of Defra, otherwise I can attach no meaning to the description.
	Finally, in the following clause, the Secretary of State is to take powers to give "directions", both general and specific. Those are very wide-ranging powers. Perhaps other noble Lords will guide me on this, but from my past experience of a non-departmental public body, I do not know of an instance where the Secretary of State has taken such potentially wide powers. The Government may respond by saying, "Yes, we have the powers because we had to make a lot of decisions. This is a complicated measure and we did not have time to work everything out. We will not use these powers unless we really have to". That does not offer much comfort because once the powers are in the Act, they will become the law and they can be used.
	Of course it may well be that the Government always intended that this body should not be independent. The staff would be right to conclude that it was a controlled subsidiary of Defra and, under these powers, could be very tightly controlled. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Selborne suggested in his remarks that it might become only a talking shop. Looking at it from the point of view of the staff, it might be a very sensible conclusion for them to reach. They can then think whatever they want to think and they can give advice in whatever way they want to do so, but given these arrangements I think they would be cautious about how far they could go when talking to officials from Defra.
	If, on the other hand, the Government really do intend this body to be independent, the Bill is going to need substantial amendment. At present there seems to be no middle way, unless of course we were to follow the prescription of Humpty Dumpty. Noble Lords will recall that Humpty Dumpty had a conversation with Alice:
	"'I don't know what you mean by "glory"'. Alice said.
	Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously, 'Of course you don't, till I tell you. I meant that there's a nice, knock-down argument for you!'
	'But "glory" doesn't mean a nice, knock-down argument', Alice objected.
	'When I use a word', Humpty Dumpty said in a rather scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less . . . The question is, which is to be the master—that's all'".
	I hope that Her Majesty's Government have more time to read the Oxford English Dictionary and less time to read Lewis Carroll.

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, first, I should declare my interests as the president of the Friends of the Ridgeway. I am also an Oxfordshire county councillor, a member of the Thames Valley Police Authority and a member of a wildlife trust. I would like the Minister, in his summary, to clear up once and for all the basis on which BOAT status—that is, by-ways open to all traffic—is in future to be claimed. This goes to the heart of Part 6 of this Bill. I know that the Minister has said that negotiations were still taking place—

Lord Bach: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. It may be hard for noble Lords to believe it, but it is true to say that since I made my opening speech this afternoon, the information that the noble Lord and other noble Lords have sought during the course of this debate has now gone through the various departments of government. Given that, I will be able to make an announcement in my closing remarks which I hope will satisfy the requests made by noble Lords.
	I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, does not mind me interrupting him with that information at this stage in his speech, but I do not want him to speak under a false premise. I will have an announcement to make.

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his statement and I shall not pursue the point, except to say that there is a huge backlog of applications, an issue to which a number of noble Lords have referred. However, local authorities have many responsibilities relating to rights of way—for instance, footpath diversions, various developments and so forth—which have nothing to do with this Bill. They are all enormously time-consuming. So despite what is alleged, local authorities are not sitting around doing nothing and the amount of time that can be devoted to addressing the issues now before us is necessarily limited.
	It has already been said in the debate that most people want to have quiet enjoyment of the countryside. Despite the vociferous representations made on behalf of several groups which drive 4x4s, quad bikes and motorcycles for fun along rights of way and on green lanes, a very much larger majority of people value the quiet enjoyment of the countryside. Those people do not believe that their rights should be interfered with by the wishes of a very small minority.
	On Saturday an article published in the Daily Telegraph touches closely on the issues now before us. Many noble Lords may have read it. However, the article totally misrepresents the position of those of us who want to protect rights of way. It talks about how access for the disabled would be compromised. That is not our intention because I do not know of many disabled people who ride quad bikes and motorbikes over rough terrain. It also states that rural householders and businesses will find themselves landlocked because their access rights will be taken away from them. That is manifestly untrue.
	I raise one other issue to which the Minister may turn in his response; that is, the new national parks and the country wardens to be employed by those parks and, in some areas, by the counties. The national parks will be able to produce their own traffic regulation orders. However, as we all know, enforcement of the law is the most difficult task. Even when a route is prohibited, there can be a considerable amount of illegal use. Will the Minister ensure that the officers appointed as wardens by the national parks will be vested by chief constables with the same powers as those held by community service officers—the semi-policemen we see around Westminster—so that they can report to the police any breaches of the traffic regulation orders? In that way, enforcement activity, which is currently so limited, would be enhanced.
	Beyond those remarks, I shall await the Minister's announcement when he sums up the debate. We shall be able to return to this business at a later stage.

The Lord Bishop of Norwich: My Lords, I am glad to have the opportunity to add my congratulations to my friend and colleague, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter, on his excellent maiden speech. Between us we have, by my calculation, over 1,000 parishes in our two dioceses. That is a sign of just how many distinct rural communities exist, as well as the still unparalleled scale and reach of the Church of England as a rural organisation. That is the experience we heard reflected in the maiden speech of the right reverend Prelate and I am sure that his clarity of mind will be of great benefit to this House.
	I must declare an interest as for almost five years I have been a board member of the Countryside Agency. As the passage of the Bill will result in the abolition of that agency, it is an interest that is in the final stages of terminal care. The agency and its staff have been in the departure lounge of quango life for a long time now, a fact to which the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, referred. I wish to pay tribute to those staff who have continued to do their jobs with remarkable dedication and commitment during a long period of uncertainty. As we shift the pieces of the rural jigsaw around, it is easy to forget that people's lives, families and relationships are being affected. I believe that the staff of the Countryside Agency—and I am sure this is true for the staff of English Nature and the Rural Development Service as well—deserve public gratitude for the way in which they have stuck to their task and prepared for a future in which some of them may not have employment at all.
	That being said, I support the general aims of the Bill. My plea, however, is that once this restructuring is complete, the Government and any successor to them, may leave it in place long enough to do its work. I have previously commented from these Benches on the itch to restructure that has characterised the Government in their rural policy in recent years. What we have before us today is the consequence of the Government's rural strategy, announced in July last year, itself a response to the rural delivery review, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, set up three years ago. By the time Natural England, or whatever it will be called—I suppose it could have been called English Nature, really, but that was probably impolitic—and the Commission for Rural Communities are vested, four years will have passed since the rural delivery review was established. That is precisely how long the Countryside Agency existed before its foundations started to be examined—and it came into being, of course, only as a result of an earlier restructuring whereby the Countryside Commission and the Rural Development Commission were brought together.
	Having planted quite a few trees in recent years, I am advised that it is not always a good policy to dig them up, examine the roots, leave them lying around for a year or two and then replant them again if you want them to grow strong and healthy. The itch to restructure and the longing to legislate seem to be regarded nowadays as marks of reforming, dynamic government. But mature institutions that serve the needs of people rather than desperately seeking to prove their own utility are not produced overnight.
	Rural England needs continuity and stability in rural policy. It needs a policy that brings together social, economic and environmental issues to deliver sustainable development, and the Bill goes a long way, through the creation of Natural England, towards providing an appropriate structure. But I doubt we are ever going to achieve that much-vaunted sustainable development if the bodies charged with delivering such a goal are themselves fragile and short term. I can think of nothing worse than the suggestion in another place that the CRC should have a five-year guillotine hanging over it. I ask the Minister to assure the House that the structures will be left in place for a decent length of time once our work on the Bill is complete.
	In the remainder of the time that I have left, I wish to refer to the Commission for Rural Communities as I find it hard to understand the objections to it. It certainly exists in shadow form already as a division of the Countryside Agency, but that is not because it is some kind of survival of what that agency presently is. It will have less than a tenth, I suspect, of the budget of the Countryside Agency at present, and, of course, the Haskins review suggested that policy and delivery should be separated. Everything that the Countryside Agency does is still reckoned to be necessary. It is simply that the jobs are being parcelled up and delivered elsewhere. But there will be a big hole in the rural strategy without the Commission. It is the Commission that will take forward the work already done in rural proofing, which in fact needs strengthening.
	I hope the Commission will continue to publish the State of the Countryside report. This provides a wealth of information, which sometimes, I suspect, is insufficiently used. I note, for example, in this year's report, that the richest 40 per cent of English households provide 75 per cent of the residents of our villages, hamlets and isolated dwellings. When that is coupled with the disparity in rural areas between local income levels and house prices, it shows how the less well off in rural England are becoming more disadvantaged or forced to move into urban settlements. That raises some very serious questions about the growing spatial separation of the rich and the poor in our society.
	The proposed SIPPs pension arrangements may only make this worse unless something is done to enable the rural housing supply to grow. We all look forward to whatever the Affordable Rural Housing Commission will have to say in March next year.
	Rural England is a place where the law of unintended consequences is powerful, and we need an independent and robust commission concentrating on rural disadvantage. It needs to be independent not only of policy makers—or, indeed, of those who deliver policy—but also of single-issue lobby groups, for which rural England provides such fertile soil. The chair of the commission will, of course, be the rural advocate, with direct access to the Prime Minister and Secretaries of State. I hope that no one in the House will think that that is a position which ought to be abolished in the interests of rural England. If anyone is to be really effective in the job it is imperative that he or she has the expertise, the networks and the logistical support that the proposed commission would provide.
	If there was no commission, I wonder who would monitor the new regional delivery of rural policy, especially through the RDAs, and who would speak out if that proved inadequate. If government policies for public service reform overlooked the rural dimension, who would say so authoritatively if we had no national body to do that work?
	Those who make and deliver policies—whether government departments, local councils, primary care trusts or RDAs—almost always have mixed rural and urban constituencies, and usually they are dominated by the urban mindset. The case for a body whose remit is solely rural and focused especially on the most disadvantaged in our rural communities, is very strong. In the hope that it may indeed both take root and be robustly independent, I wish it and the Bill well.

Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Carter, I also have doubts about the title, "Natural England". The noble Lord and I share, at least in part of our education, a common institution, so perhaps it is not so remarkable that he and I should find agreement on this. It calls to mind that during my studies there was an agricultural research institution still then in existence called the Rothhampstead Experimental Research Station which, a century before, had put a field on one side and left it to see what would happen. After a century it had become oak forest. It was beautiful, completely unproductive for most human purposes and, if you stood in the centre of it, you had a very restricted view. Running through today's debate there has been a real concern that what is now called Natural England should not finish up like that. I hope the Minister will agree that this is possible and that we should do something about the title, which is a little unfortunate.
	Clause 2 states that Natural England's general purpose is,
	"to ensure that the natural environment is conserved, enhanced and managed for the benefit of present and future generations".
	That is fine. But whenever the Government are advancing a case about which they have some slight doubt, they add the wonderful catchphrase,
	"thereby contributing to sustainable development".
	I have never discovered with any satisfaction precisely what sustainable development is. I took the trouble to refer to the dictionaries before this debate. Both the Concise Oxford English Dictionary and Chambers Dictionary stated:
	"Capable of being maintained at a set level".
	Clearly, that does not work. The Brundtland report of 1987 contained a better definition:
	"Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs".
	That is admirable—I have no quarrel with that—but the trouble is that we are not doing it. Whether we like it or not, we have set in process the awful problem of global warming. We have destabilised the atmosphere and we do not know what the consequences are. The truth is that the natural environment has always been in a state of evolution in any event. Therefore, that catchphrase is unfortunate. I would prefer to see it taken out of the Bill all together. In fact, if the Government were wise, they would cease to use the phrase at all.
	As Clause 2(1) states, we can,
	"ensure that the natural environment is conserved, enhanced and managed for the benefit of present and future generations".
	But the environment in 50 years' time will be very different from that with which we are familiar today and if we are to beat the problem of global warming, we shall have to do things which some people will think are an offence to conservation. Solutions such as intensive production of crops for biofuels are at least as offensive from the point of view of the environment as any other form of intensive agriculture, but we are going to have to do those things—so there is good reason for concern.
	I have two other points of concern which are worth raising at this stage. I read in Clause 4 that Natural England—I will continue to call it that because that is the only name we have at the moment—
	"may give advice to any person on any matter relating to its general purpose".
	Under Clause 11, it is given the power to make charges. What worries me is that it has the power to give advice to people who have not requested it. Can it charge people for giving them unwanted advice? That is an interesting prospect. We will be exploring these matters with great care and in great detail in Committee, but that is an interesting juxtaposition of words.
	Worse still, Clause 13 states:
	"Natural England may do anything that appears to it to be conducive or incidental to the discharge of its functions".
	When one looks at what its functions are, that is fine, but what worries me about that provision is that, under a different jurisdiction, in a different part of the world, it would be an invitation to malpractice of the most appalling kind. We need to examine what is meant by "anything". It has to have a restrictive meaning, because otherwise it could invite improper practice. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, is looking at me as if I had suddenly developed horns and a forked tail. I know that no proper English agency would ever behave in an improper way and that there are restrictions on its doing so, but we have to deal with the law as we are writing it and we ought not to be writing that kind of language into the law.
	These are small, but important, matters. A number of others will unquestionably arise at later stages. The principle of the Bill is not to be quarrelled with too much, but we need to recognise that we are doing yet another lap around the course of administrative superstructure between the Government and the countryside. We do these laps with monotonous regularity. I am afraid that my conclusion is that this is a race that will never end. There is no satisfactory outcome. There will be no winner. There is, however, a potential loser. As the control of the countryside moves from the countryside to centralised administrative structures, the potential loser is the countryside itself. That which the Government are seeking to conserve could end up being destroyed.

Lord Clark of Windermere: My Lords, this has been an excellent debate. It is one of the best debates in which I have spoken during my five years in this House. I should not be surprised, because every participant has brought expertise—some of the best expertise in this country.
	I support the Bill. It is a good Bill. In that respect, I go along with the latter points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, who said that he welcomed the Bill with certain reservations—I paraphrase. I think that that, in a sense, is the mood of the House. The Government have done everything correctly. They put the Bill out to a form of pre-legislative scrutiny. The Bill has been before the Select Committee in the other House. There was a full debate in the other House, which I am sure most of us have followed very closely. And there has been a more general debate in the public arena.
	I support the Bill, I guess, for the simple reason that I believe that it can improve the delivery of services in rural areas and wider. I emphasise "and wider", because the Bill is about not only rural areas but urban areas. Natural England will have a remit in the urban area as well as the rural area.
	I have been encouraged too by the Minister's announcement—I hope that I am going to be even more encouraged by his announcement later—that Sir Martin Doughty will be chair designate of the new organisation. I think that we all trust Sir Martin. He will be independent in matters of concern on both sides of the House, and he will be a sturdy champion of Natural England.
	I also pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Haskins. I have known him for 20 or so years. I am very proud of the fact that I brought him into government in 1997. I appointed him as chair of the Better Regulation Task Force. He was superb at that. He brought an incisive, invigorating and reforming approach. Most of all, he came forward with a pragmatic approach to balancing and reducing the number of regulations that we all find so burdensome. So I pay tribute to the noble Lord. I believe that his report of October 2003 was the genesis of the Bill that we are discussing today.
	I shall not speak from the notes which I have prepared because this is a debate. I have said how good a debate it has been and it is right and proper to respond to some of the points that have been raised. In declaring an interest as chair of the Forestry Commission, I ought at least to make some initial response to the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, and the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, who both asked why neither the Forestry Commission nor the Environment Agency is in this new quango.
	There are a number of reasons. It was something that the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, looked at, and he made the recommendation that the Forestry Commission should be either aligned to or part of the new agency. That was something that the Government obviously considered and they came down in favour of alignment for the simple reason that they believed that it was the best way in which to preserve the special qualities of the Forestry Commission and what it had brought to this country over the past 80 years and that it would attain and help the objectives of the new agency. The noble Earl rightly made the point about biomass and wood-fuelled central heating; that is something that we are working on very hard—and indeed, at our headquarters in Kielder, we have just established one such wood-fired central heating unit that heats not only our office but the local youth hostel and some of the local community buildings as well. We are working with an organisation called SembCorp, which is establishing and building a full-sized wood-fired power station on Teesside. The critical mass of that wood will come out of our forests.
	The lesson that I have learnt from the noble Earl this evening is simply this: the one thing that I find difficult in working with foresters—and I do not find much difficulty in doing so—is that they find it a problem to explain to people what they do or, to put it crudely, to sing their own praises. They are naturally people who get on and deliver. Almost the key finding of the report of the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, was just that—that there was a great deal of satisfaction with the Forestry Commission and the way in which it works. Paragraph 6.54 of the noble Lord's report states:
	"If Ministers pursue the option of fully integrating forestry functions in England with the proposed new agency"—
	that is the key issue; it is never highlighted but it is in words of one syllable—
	"I would advise against transferring the management of the estate (by Forest Enterprise England) as well".
	In other words, the noble Lord is saying, no matter what you do with the Forestry Commission, with the regulatory aspect he would advise against transferring the overwhelming majority of the activity of the commission to the new agency. That was his recommendation.
	When I point out to noble Lords certain things that my foresters would not point out—that there are 350 million visits a year to Forestry Commission land, which is many more visits than to the seaside, and that there are 22,000 kilometres of tracks in forests used for cycling, which is enough to go half the way around the world; and when I say that we have dedicated for access in perpetuity 130,000 hectares in the past 18 months, I am making the point that the Forestry Commission delivers as it is. The figure of 350 million visits to our forests, which are free—gratis, for nothing—for the benefit of the citizens of our country, has been estimated not by us but by independent assessors. It means that we bring in almost £2.5 billion to the local economy. That money does not go to the Forestry Commission; it goes into the local economy.
	An example that is very dear to my heart is that of the ospreys in Cumbria, which attract more than 100,000 visitors a year, just to watch the two birds. It has been estimated that the amount accruing to the local economy is more than £2 million a year, just for those two birds, which were attracted because some clever foresters saw the ospreys going up to Scotland, chopped the tops of the pine trees, built a platform and a nest, and applied the white paint to make it realistic—and that attracted the ospreys down. That is innovative thinking from the Forestry Commission, and innovative thinking with which I hope the new commission will be affected, by working alongside us, because it is the innovative thinking that is necessary if we are going to improve the delivery in the rural areas, as we need to.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, in my earlier contribution I was not decrying what the Forestry Commission does, and I do not believe that the noble Lord has taken it that way. In fact, I am someone who walks in Dunwich forest and in many other areas. Our concern, which will presumably come up in Committee when we debate the matter in detail, is whether there was an overlap between the two causes. That is the area on which I could not go into further detail today—but I thank the noble Lord for his contribution.

Lord Clark of Windermere: My Lords, I certainly did not take the noble Baroness's intervention as she may have suggested. I believe that it was a very fair point to put, and a fair point that I tried to rebut.

Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I shall limit my remarks to Part 6 of the Bill, which deals with the issue of rights of way. I certainly support the overall thrust of that part—as have all noble Lords who have spoken on the subject—and the way in which the Bill addresses the abuse of quiet rural unmade roads and tracks by motor vehicles, motor cycles and so forth. There is certainly a problem, and I agree that it needs to be addressed. But as ever with legislation, the law of unintended consequences has struck and struck hard.
	The consequence of changes proposed in Section 47 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act and in Part 6 of this Bill is that it will become an offence to drive to properties adjacent to restricted byways unless property owners have either acquired a prescriptive right to do so or have the benefit of a private right to drive over the restricted byway. I declare an interest in that my family owns a property in exactly that situation and have accessed the property for getting on for half a century without any objection. Indeed, the ownership of the track over which the property is accessed is lost in the mists of time. In the past, it was quite common for the sales of properties along RUPPs, which will soon be restricted byways, to be concluded notwithstanding the lack of either an express right of way over the RUPP or the existence of a prescriptive right of way, because it was not then an offence to drive over those roads. However, when the law changes such properties may be difficult to sell—and there have been some recent examples of that.
	The problem is of some scale. In the district of Wokingham, in Berkshire, alone, the council estimates that there is £100 million-worth of property that could be so affected. That may say something about property values in Wokingham, of course, but if one extrapolates around the country one can say that perhaps some billions of pounds—or at least £1 billion—is affected. It is a serious, if narrow, problem. I understand that there are similar problems across the country; for example, in Hampshire and Oxfordshire, with more than 300 RUPPs behind them. That was clearly not the intention behind either the provisions in this Bill or the provisions in the CROW Act, and I understand that the Government are sympathetic to the case. When the CROW Act was drafted, Defra officials were clearly not aware of the issue.
	I repeat that I support the overall objective behind this part of the legislation, but there is a serious problem here. I understand that the Government are sympathetic to the issue and that a commitment was made in another place that they would introduce an amendment of their own in this House, in response to the one tabled by my right honourable friend the Member for Bracknell. If the issue is not addressed, it would be a substantial injustice and would compound the rush to convert or reregister RUPPs as byways open to all traffic—so-called BOATs. That is not what any of us who have spoken in today's debate would want, but I suspect that is what will happen if it is the only alternative for people to guarantee access to their properties. But I hope that the Minister introduces an amendment and look forward to seeing it in due course.

Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, I ask for your Lordships' indulgence, particularly that of the Minister. I have a long-standing engagement that will make it impossible for me to attend his winding-up. This is a particular disappointment, in view of his intervention earlier on the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, but I hope he will not regard this as a discourtesy.
	It is my lot to speak after my noble friend Lord Goschen solely on Part 6 of the Bill. Here I congratulate the Government on a refreshing and radical concept, which is to be warmly welcomed in the interests of protecting the environment. However, there are some lacunae in this part of the Bill, as my noble friend and others have noted, in particular my noble friend Lady Byford. I compliment the noble Lord, Lord Haworth, on his explicit exposition of the problems lying behind the issue of exemptions.
	I contend that the tidiest way to give effect to the new Bill is to give no exemptions at all—the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, has made this abundantly and unequivocally clear—and for the Minister to confirm that all new claims will be dealt with under the new legislation. I find the words at Third Reading of the Minister in another place, Mr Jim Knight, encouraging. He said that,
	"if there is the flood that we fear as a result of my announcement about commencement, I will seek to take as aggressive a stance as I possibly can from that legal advice on how outstanding claims are to be dealt with".—[Official Report, Commons, 11/10/05; col. 228.]
	I was encouraged by the Minister's opening remarks, and I hope your Lordships will be further encouraged by his closing speech as a result of his intervention.
	Evidence from the Green Lanes Protection Group suggests that BOAT claims made in the three weeks following Third Reading in another place totalled 183. That compared with 284 for the whole of 2005 up to that date, but with only 100 for the whole of 2003. These figures must be treated with caution for a number of reasons, not least that different authorities have differing procedures for dealing with incompletely submitted claims. Some are returned to claimants; others accepted conditionally. These figures, however, indicate an increasing trend, and there is evidence that a large number—in the Minister's words, "a flood"—of claims are being held pending clarification by the Government. This is borne out by the number of applications for claim forms that have been received by several authorities.
	I am sure it is recognised in all parts of your Lordships' House that there are conflicts between users of MPVs on the one hand and conservators and landowners on the other. It will be the wish of the House that at least this part of the Bill is as consensual as it can be. I have made my views clear: there should be no exemptions. If the Minister finds it necessary to have a cut-off date, however, this does not amount to retrospection. I have had advice from counsel to the effect that terminating the procedure for recording a right under Part 3 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 does not of itself offend the presumption against retrospection. I hope the Minister will bear this in mind should he find it appropriate to fix a cut-off date.
	To that end, I suggest two possible options. The first is that claims should be exempted where a DMMO has already been made by the highway authority but the process has for some reason not been completed. This has the clear attraction of exempting older cases where evidence has been considered and reliance placed, at least in procedural terms, on the existing law. But it would mean that exemption would not be granted in recent cases made after the notice of change in the law has been given, most of which claims will have been made to beat the clock.
	The other, simpler option is that exemption should be granted for all claims made before 9 December 2003, the date of publication of the Minister's proposals. This would contain an element of fairness, and would be in line with the frequent practice of dating commencement from a ministerial note of intention.
	This part of the Bill is sensible and equitable. As it stands, its intentions are capable of being neutered. I am sure many of your Lordships will have seen a photograph, reputedly taken in the Yorkshire Dales, of a Land Rover buried almost up to its bonnet in slurry, with a queue of others behind it waiting to "enjoy the fun". This is the massacre of the ancient byways of England and Wales that this Bill is designed to protect, and I urge the Government in this respect not to fall at the last hurdle.

Lord Moran: My Lords, sadly we have got used to thinking that the present Government have little interest in, or concern for, the environment, the countryside and the people who live it, and the landscape in what is left of our green and pleasant land. A few days ago I saw a report that two government agencies, the Countryside Agency and English Nature, had denounced Mr Prescott's plan to build half a million new houses in the south-east of England as "environmental vandalism". Under his plans, houses are to be built on flood plains and in environmentally sensitive locations. There are to be 67 new road schemes, concreting over much of the south and south-west.
	All this is against the background of a prolonged crisis in farming, when dairy farmers can no longer get a price for milk that covers their cost, supermarkets prefer to buy cheap Brazilian beef instead of high-quality British beef, and Deloitte's annual survey of farm incomes says that the only rational response for farmers to present prices should be to get out of producing food. If farming as we know it is to remain unprofitable, the role of farmers in looking after the countryside will be lost, causing a huge deterioration of the countryside, which will be a devastating loss to each and every one of us.
	After all this, it was a rare pleasure to come across this Bill, and to find it contained so much that could be warmly welcomed. It was introduced with a persuasive speech by the Minister this afternoon. I was particularly glad to see that it has been welcomed by leading NGOs dedicated to wildlife and the environment: Wildlife Link, of which I once had the honour to be chairman; the RSPB, on whose council I once sat; the Wildlife Trust, with which I am associated as president of one of the smallest of their trusts, that for Radnorshire; the Campaign for the Protection of Rural England; and a number of others. Natural England, despite its odd and not very satisfactory title, on which I agree with Lord Carter, needs to be a tough, effective force. If it is, it could be valuable.
	Defra is to be congratulated on arranging for the draft Bill to be scrutinised by a Commons committee, which produced an admirable, detailed report. I read it and the Government's response, which accepted most of the committee's recommendations, with much interest. Most of the environmental NGOs gave evidence to this committee, and I have read their latest briefing notes, which are helpful. There are still one or two unresolved points, though, on which the Commons committee and most NGOs are agreed but the Government are as yet unpersuaded. It is these points on which we should concentrate when we come to the Committee and Report stages.
	Looking at the Government's response, I found that three of the principal recommendations—including one on the level of independence and one on flexible delivery—received a positive response from the Government, on pages 20 and 23. A number of important recommendations, however, received a negative response, particularly those on conflict resolution, regarding what happens when environmental and other considerations—for example, access—come into conflict; on the question of a role for protecting the landscape; on quiet recreation; and on future environmental charging.
	Two of those points are important. Conflict resolution is desirable, but needs to be addressed only in the last resort. It should not come up every day. There are, however, situations in which there is no agreement between the environmental imperative and the economic—or, conceivably, social—argument on the other side. In those circumstances, it should be laid down in the Bill that the environmental consideration should prevail.
	On the question of protecting landscape, it has been pointed out that there is provision in the Bill for biodiversity to be protected but not landscape. If that is left in the Bill as such, it will send a signal to everyone outside that Parliament is less interested in the landscape than in biodiversity. That would be wrong and misleading. The arguments put forward by the committee and by a number of NGOs that the word "protect" should be used for landscape should be adopted primarily for that reason.
	On the question of quiet recreation, I have heard the Government's arguments, which I understand, but I am sure that some other form of words could be devised, perhaps at the next stage, that would cover that point.
	There are one or two smaller points. It is, I think, important that there should be a duty in the Bill on the Secretary of State to deal with the question of non-native species that have a devastating effect on our own biodiversity; creatures such as the mink or the signal crayfish come to mind. It must be possible for the Government to take effective action to stop them coming in and spreading. The CPRE has also raised the question of the lack of any provision in the Bill for protecting and enhancing the extent and quality of the countryside, which it thinks is possibly an oversight in the drafting of the legislation. So it argues, and I think that it is right, that,
	"the acknowledgement of the countryside as a source of open-air recreation in the Bill is matched with a recognition of the importance of retaining its extent and quality".
	On rights of way, I agree very much with the points that have been made very powerfully in the House on the need for urgent action to stop the spread of BOATs by a recreational minority who are more interested in the challenge of driving 4x4s over soft ground on old green lanes than anything else, which is doing immense damage. I look forward eagerly to hearing what the Minister has to say about that. The noble Lord, Lord Haworth, spoke very eloquently about the issue and I agree with everything that he said. The need is for action to be taken quickly before things get out of hand.
	One of the factors that is really effective in preserving the landscape is land ownership. It is the most effective way in which the interests that we all have at heart can be protected. Perhaps the greatest single example of what has been done is the work of the National Trust in the Lake District, where the acquisition of land begun at the turn of the century by Canon Rawnsley and Beatrix Potter has now resulted in the trust owning or leasing nearly all the central area of fells and major valley heads, six of the main lakes and much of their shorelines—140,000 acres in all, with 87 farms, 15 of them bequeathed to the trust by Beatrix Potter. If it had not been for this magnificent effort by a private voluntary organisation, the Lake District would undoubtedly now be ruined by commercial development.
	Public bodies which own or manage land can very often do something effective in that degree. For example, the Wildlife Trusts has pointed out that the Prison Service has carried out surveys and produced its own biodiversity action plan because a lot of the land surrounding prisons has a wealth of wildlife. It has produced this biodiversity action plan with the help of English Nature and the Wildlife Trusts. That seems to me thoroughly commendable. There is obviously a need for the new organisation to work very closely with farmers and other land managers. That, I am sure, it will do.

Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, like most landowners and caretakers I have been a client of numerous government agencies, not only complying with their aims but also receiving funds to help achieve them—an experience not always to be recommended. Like other noble Lords I welcome the establishment of Natural England—NE—and its aims of managing and enhancing the natural environment from seabed to mountaintop, more efficiently and with lower costs, we hope. There has long been too much overlap between English Nature, the Countryside Agency, the Forestry Commission and the Rural Development Service. Consolidation will provide a simpler interface for the clients and a clear list of objectives. Most important are the promotion of natural conservation and protection of biodiversity, the improvement of facilities for studying and enjoying nature, the promotion of sustainable use of the countryside through access and recreation, and the contribution to economic well-being through the management of the natural environment—at less cost to the taxpayer and client, one hopes, than has been the case recently. However, there are three points that I should like to raise.
	First, there is currently no recourse in the Bill to arbitration should a landowner or caretaker disagree with the remit of NE. Given that many such disagreements could easily be resolved through arbitration, it would seem economically and practically prudent to put such a system in place rather than forcing every such challenge to be addressed directly to the Secretary of State, a complex procedure that is not available to many owing to the cost.
	Secondly, it is important that landowners be given some flexibility in carrying out the wishes of NE while accepting the need to conform to the aims and directions of NE. Too heavy a hand in the minutiae of execution is rarely productive. In short, while NE should set the aim, the client should be allowed to achieve the aim in his own way. Clients usually have great experience in their field and derive much enjoyment from the challenges of management. Indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said, most of our countryside is man made. The maker is surely well qualified to manage it.
	Finally, the NERC Bill fails to clarify whether enhancing or conserving the environment should be considered the priority. Indeed, what is the definition of "enhancing" and "conserving"? I am sure there will be a discussion—a little discussion—in Committee. Likewise, there is some ambiguity about whether wildlife or human access to the countryside should take precedence. The Woodland Trust and the CPRE are among others that would like to see a conflict resolution clause that makes it clear that when there is a serious or irreconcilable conflict between open-air recreation and conserving the natural environment, NE will give the greater weight to conserving the natural environment. I listened earlier to the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, articulate similar views. On the other hand, the Central Council of Physical Recreation believes that,
	"access and recreation [should] . . . be given equal consideration as conservation and biodiversity".
	I therefore believe that the Bill would be the better for clarification in this important area.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, in view of the fact that the Minister said that prior to the election I was responsible for the Bill, it will come as no great surprise to your Lordships to hear that I strongly support it. In so far as it has been changed since I relinquished responsibility for it, it has been vastly improved.
	Much has been said already about the Bill and I do not intend to repeat much of it. However, I wish to make two points that I do not think have been made, certainly not while I was in the Chamber or watching the debate on the monitor. First, as a former waterways Minister, I very much welcome the establishment of the independent waterways council. Waterways are a very important feature of our rural and, indeed, urban landscape and their contribution to recreation and biodiversity is very important. Secondly, I also welcome the contingency powers to implement recommendations arising from the review of the agricultural levy boards. I am at one with the NFU and the farmers' organisations that we need to update the whole role of the levy boards in an era when we are moving to single farm payments and a more homogenous approach to farming more generally.
	As regards the main provisions of the Bill, I believe that generally there has been a huge welcome for the creation of Natural England, with the rather important caveat of doubt about its title. I was not personally responsible for the title. It was subject to a competition among the staff and others during the early period of discussion and consultation. It rather reminds me of when I was a trades union officer and we had to change the rather old-fashioned name of the National Union of General and Municipal Workers. We had 100,000 replies with the consensus being that it should be called the General and Municipal Workers Union. To some extent, the name Natural England has a slight problem for the reasons given by my noble friend Lord Carter and others, whereas "nature" is a slightly wider term. Nevertheless, any changes that need to be made to the name will have to be consequent on the body's activities and on the passage of the Bill.
	I believe that everything else in the Bill has largely been welcomed. One of the reasons it has been welcomed is the very substantial constructive engagement not only of the staff, boards and chairs of the agencies involved—I wish particularly to put on record our thanks to Sir Martin Doughty and my congratulations on his appointment—but of stakeholders more widely, the Environment Agency, the Forestry Commission and the staff of the parts of Defra which are being passed on to the new organisation. Those efforts and that constructive approach in a period of difficult and anxiety-inducing change have greatly improved the provisions which are now reflected in the Bill.
	There seems to be a wide consensus on the overall intentions and objectives of the new agency although there has been some argument about its general purpose. The drafting of the relevant clauses was subject to considerable consultation and ingenuity. They may not be absolutely perfect but they reflect a better balance than is now being urged by some. On the one hand, those who say that we should give equal weight to economic and social objectives in sustainable development miss the central point that this is essentially an environmental agency. While it has to recognise that it has social and economic outputs—I hope that those will be positive—the central role of the agency will be environmental. On the other hand, I do not accept the argument put by some of the environmental lobby groups that the references to social and economic outputs should not be included at all and that the body should be seen purely as an environmental organisation. In fact, the role of sustainable development constitutes a wider philosophical and political argument but we need a balance here—it is primarily environmental but it must pay attention to the social and economic implications for the countryside of its aim of protecting biodiversity and the landscape.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, alluded to the importance of the new agency working very closely with the Environment Agency. That is particularly important in the areas which will become of increasing significance in the countryside as we move more resources of the agri-environment schemes into Pillar 2 of the CAP, to which she referred. I refer also in that regard to the management of water in our countryside. The catchment areas and their effect on farming, agricultural practice and the quality of water will become increasingly important and have a significant effect on biodiversity and, indeed, in some instances on the landscape itself. That requires all the agencies to co-operate, and to co-operate with the farming community, to ensure that we achieve the objectives of adequate quantity and quality of water without having a negative impact on wildlife.
	The more controversial area concerns the role of the CRC. I am almost entirely at one with the views of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, on that matter. I do not understand the position of noble Lords who have indicated that because the protection of rural communities is such an important issue somehow we should not have a CRC as proposed in the Bill. The logic of that escapes me. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, is right to say that the Countryside Agency in its previous incarnation as a delivery body was partly hamstrung by the fact that it was a delivery body and had to deliver through its rather limited resources in conjunction with other bodies while at the same time performing a cross-government role on rural proofing, rural advice and rural advocacy. I support the removal of those delivery obligations and the creation of a stronger countryside representative body, arguing across government. People argue that this is Defra's responsibility but the whole point of the CRC is that it will be an organisation influencing all areas of government which affect rural communities.
	There are huge social and economic problems in many of our rural areas. We have established a separate commission responsible for affordable housing. However, there are other social problems of great significance in rural areas, not least of which is the problem of inequality in income and wealth and access to services such as transport, education and health. Therefore, it is important to have a CRC that is sufficiently independent and cross-government and operates at regional, local and national level to ensure that all policies are assessed in terms of their impact on rural communities in England. There is a very strong case for having a CRC as proposed in the Bill. It must be strong and independent and its membership must have a broad vision regarding the future of our countryside.
	However, I acknowledge that there are caveats. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, and others, I should have liked to see a slightly bigger role for local government. However, I suspect that is not a matter for this legislation; it is a matter for the broader policy which surrounds it and which I believe will deliver a better future for our countryside not only through its rationalisation of the agencies but also through better co-operation between those agencies, local government and the RDAs and other rural and regional instruments of policy. I greatly welcome the Bill. I wish it God speed through this House although I suspect that we shall have substantial discussions in Committee. I wish it well.

Lord Kimball: My Lords, as deputy president of the Countryside Alliance, I consider that this Bill is a distraction from the real issues facing the countryside today. I am certain that the Minister recognises it—he knows much too much about the rural community—but he has been landed with this Bill, which is nothing more than a new layer of bureaucracy.
	Does the Bill deal with the devastation of the countryside by wind farms? They produce very little electricity and when sited offshore cost more per unit than nuclear power stations, as was made perfectly clear in our debate last week. Does the Bill deal with the fact that every local newspaper is full of advertisements for new agricultural machinery because farmers are now contracting out their cultivations in the hope of trying to survive? Does the Bill deal with the squeeze that supermarkets are having on farm prices, the removal of subsidies and the ever-increasing red tape made worse by this Bill?
	Does the appointment of Sir Martin Doughty achieve anything? He has refused to meet or listen to the Countryside Alliance, which is a major player in the countryside today. We should spare a thought also for the rural community as a whole. It and the family farm are fast disappearing.
	Natural England would provide a single focus for those who manage and protect our countryside and green spaces. It will only be effective if it incorporates all dimensions of land management. We need a proper balance between social, economic and environmental priorities. The Bill offers greater protection to wildlife, but not in the right way. It does so by increased penalties, which is not the way to go. We have had a compromise reached on cormorants nesting inland. We have come to an agreement about the culling of Canada geese. We have to reach an agreement about hen harriers—some form of translocation. The economic and social consequences of an increase in the harrier population are unacceptable. The Bill concentrates on compliance rather than making a commitment to work with local land management committees. This is contrary to the Government's commitment to work with local communities to attain sustainable development.
	I am, as others were, particularly concerned about Part 6 dealing with rights of way, which seems to have been tacked on to the Bill without proper consultation. If a path has been freely used by the public for 20 years, it becomes a right of way. That can only be stopped if a legal procedure is followed. The issue of rights of way for mechanically powered vehicles has caused considerable trouble over the years. That is because of the status of the path and partly because of the increasingly powerful vehicles, which have a disruptive effect that is much more than was originally envisaged. Clause 61 would prevent a new right of way for mechanically propelled vehicles being created.
	There are many complex issues in the Bill, and its impact could be fatally compromised by trying to do too much. Will it make a difference in protecting and delivering for wildlife, landscaping and ensuring a better way of life in rural communities? I doubt it very much; it is another layer of bureaucracy that will achieve very little.

Lord Greaves: My Lords, it is now several hours since my noble friend Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer said that she was looking forward to the speeches in the debate. While that was chronologically a true statement, it was also an accurate statement in terms of the quality of the debate that we have had. In particular, we are grateful to the Minister for his clear and interesting—these matters are not always interesting—exposition of the Bill. We were privileged to hear the maiden speech from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter, who has such important local knowledge of his own part of the country, which is at the opposite end of England to mine, and we look forward to hearing further contributions from him, I hope, on the remaining stages of the Bill.
	I cannot continue without commenting on the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, who in his new role of gamekeeper-turned-poacher—a very friendly poacher—showed that he has lost none of his knowledge and expertise in this matter. Again, we are privileged that he considers it important enough to come back and share his knowledge and experience, despite the fact that he no longer sits on the Front Bench.
	The previous Bill on which I spoke at Second Reading was the Commons Bill, when I welcomed the Minister to the interesting experience of a Defra Bill in this House. The fact that he now has two Bills on the go at once suggests that he has a dedication beyond the normal and reasonable call of duty, and we hope that he bears up under the strain.
	My noble friend said that we welcomed the move to improve the natural environment, and of course we do, but we have some concerns about the Bill. We have to start off by asking, "Is it right in principle?"; "Is it sensible in practice in general?"; and, "Will it actually work?". The matters that the Bill covers are, by and large, right in principle. We have some concerns about the way in which it is proposed to deliver the provisions, particularly, as has been discussed, on the proposed CRC. We will have to discuss in considerable detail in Committee whether it will work. That is what we are there for.
	An overall concern, which was alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich, is what some people have called the Government's "re-organisation mania". Re-organisation is not always bad, and the re-organisation into Natural England makes a great deal of sense. However, there is a sense that the Government have the view that they must reform—"reform" is the word of the day—and that they do so simply by re-organising the deckchairs. I am not by any means suggesting that Defra and its associated quangos resemble the "Titanic", but there is a sense that, to quote the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, the chaos engendered by that process is counterproductive if you do too much of it. There is an obsession with permanent change that causes us a great deal of concern. We would certainly go along with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich in his plea that when these changes have taken place they are given a considerable amount of time to settle down and to work in practice over a large number of years. We do not want people coming back in another four or five years wanting to throw it all up in the air again and see where it lands.
	My noble friend, who expressed concerns relating to Chapter 2 of Part 1 on the CRC, said that we were looking for—this is an apt metaphor—a grass-roots-upwards rural policy. There is a feeling that the quango structure that is proposed is top-down. In the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, we have to consider carefully in Committee whether it will take away more accountability from locally elected lay representatives. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked why we are against what is being proposed. It is really down to a view of the nature of democracy and the nature of public policy-making and public administration in a democracy. It seems to us that a more grass-roots-upwards approach—a more democratic approach—is required, rather than the top-down approach that is being put forward. That is not to say that the top-down approach will not work in practice; it may work and if it comes about we will do whatever we can to help.
	Various noble Lords have discussed the rather strange title, "Natural England". We are told that it was the result of a competition among the staff. That is an argument against naming new quangos in that way, because it is always likely to come up with something odd. It is an odd name, although no one has yet suggested a different one. Perhaps someone will suggest one before we table amendments in Committee. It is the kind of title that the Government seem to like, which half means what it says but is not very clear about it.
	At least it is fairly clear what the Commission for Rural Communities is about; it is a name that people will understand and remember. The noble Earl, Lord Peel, suggested that "Natural England" was naff. That reminded me of the old slogan that people used to wave: "MAFF is naff". It was generally thought that that was why the department was called Defra instead of MAFF when it was reorganised. The noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, wants to call the body NE. I am not sure that that is a sensible idea. If it is to be called Natural England, let us call it Natural England, and not call it NE, which seems naffer than ever. It will all come out in the wash.
	One concern is the term "natural environment". As a number of noble Lords have pointed out, very few environments in these islands are genuinely natural once you get outside the marine dimension—it was mentioned by the noble Baroness—in which some are arguably natural. Perhaps the summit plateaus of the Cairngorms are more or less in the condition in which they would be if there were no human beings on this island, but there are few others. "Natural environment" is not defined in the Bill, which simply assumes that we know what it means. I suspect that it is not defined because, if the Government tried to do so, they would get into all kinds of difficulties. We are really talking about vegetation and wildlife, but also about landscape. It is therefore a fairly vague term.
	The general purpose of Natural England and the five provisions set out in Clause 2(2) seem fairly sensible. They are sufficiently general not to require a detailed debate on which purposes should be superior and inferior. If we start getting into that debate, we will start to get into difficulty. They are sufficiently general that they can be applied in a sensible way to provide the necessary balance in particular circumstances, locations, pieces of land or local environments. I was a little alarmed when the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, started trying to put access on one hand against the environment on the other. There are enough safeguards in existing legislation, notably in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act, to resolve those problems when they occur in particular circumstances. In one or two things that she said, she mixed up fairly low-level access—ramblers, climbers and people like that—with dramatic development, ruining the view and all the rest of it. We have to avoid getting too carried away with that, although I suspect that, in almost all circumstances, if she and I got together to resolve a situation on the ground, we would do so quite happily. There is not a great deal between us, and we should avoid trying to build up an ideological dispute on the subject when there really is not one.
	A number of noble Lords talked about the changes in the common agricultural policy and agri-environment schemes. I thought that I knew how the new system would work until I heard various noble Lords with different interpretations of it. Perhaps the Minister can help on exactly which of the Defra functions—the Rural Development Service, agri-environment schemes and so on—will be transferred to Natural England, and which will remain with Defra. We may need to go into that in rather more detail in Committee, so that we understand how the new system will work and, if we think it is wrong, we can say so and try to change the Government's mind.
	I was going to say a great deal about the Commission for Rural Communities, but it is probably best if I save that until Committee. There is clearly a lot to be said in Committee about Part 6 and rights of way; my noble friend Lord Bradshaw will lead on that so far as we are concerned, but that is another part of the Bill that we have to understand, get right, and make the necessary changes to. We look forward to the new government proposals on that.
	The only other question on which I want to comment is that of flexible administrative arrangements, agreements with designated bodies and the whole of Part 8, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, and the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, referred. Part 8 seems to be a recipe for the Government—together with their friendly quangos—being able to do what they want in the area how they want, without coming to Parliament and without anyone apart from them agreeing to it. That is how it reads. The Minister is shaking his head; again, we look forward with some interest to the debates on that in Committee.
	This is an important Bill. It is a very technical Bill in many ways, but it raises considerable issues of important public policy. We understand that the Government have not yet decided whether they will take it on the Floor of the House or in Grand Committee; the Liberal Democrat Benches would be very strongly of the view that we ought to take it in a Committee of the whole House, given its importance, its range of issues, and the public interest in it. No doubt appropriate discussions will take place between the usual channels in due course about that. Having said that, we give the Bill a broad welcome—parts of it with great enthusiasm, and parts of it with reservations. We look forward very much to the Minister's reply and to discussions in Committee.

The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, this has been a most interesting and wide-ranging debate. We have benefited a great deal from the expertise shown. In particular, I congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter. With his maiden speech, he showed us the depth of his understanding and drew on his wide experience of rural matters. We very much look forward to hearing him again. The Bishops' Benches have always contributed in a way that we find worth listening to carefully because of the experience and expertise that the bishops bring to us. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich also gave us some useful information and views about the Bill and how it should go forward.
	I began to wonder whether we should congratulate the Minister on having his brief expanded to include rural affairs. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, worried that we on these Benches did not entirely support the idea of the rural advocate, but we had been worried that there was no Minister in this House to do with rural affairs. These things will all be settled in due course.
	The Bill contains much of interest to me, both as a land manager and as a student of our devolution settlement. I get the feeling that my understanding of those concepts as it is now will not remain the same when we have finished with the Bill. I was grateful to my noble friend Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville for expressing his admiration for some items in Scottish legislation on nature conservancy, but the ambition of this Government when they set out to tackle such problems never ceases to amaze me. Once bold ideas are reduced to words in legislation, the outcome usually fills me and many others with a bit of disappointment.
	By way of declaring my interests, I should say that I live in a recognisably beautiful part of the country. It has never been a particularly rich or productive part, and presumably my ancestors recognised that when they bought into it 300 years ago. They looked after it in ways that suited their intentions and, as a result, there are numerous ways in which I have to declare my interest in parts of the Bill—particularly when I have figured out which ones apply to Scotland. The land that was formerly our estate has been designated a national park and an area of outstanding natural beauty. I am still the owner of a national nature reserve that borders on a Ramsar site. I manage three additional SSSIs, one SPA, one SPC—the House must forgive me for using all the acronyms; it is probably easiest—and a designated landscape, all in an area in Scottish terms that is fairly small and limited.
	That reflects an aspect which was well drawn to our attention by my noble friend Lord Peel and which is in danger of being overlooked in the framework proposed by the Government—that is, given a chance to exercise their own initiative, individuals are readily interested in looking after their environment, and they are prepared to put money into it provided that they are allowed to earn and keep a sufficient amount.
	Perhaps one of the tussles that the Government are currently having with their Back-Benchers should not be lost on the House. As I understand it, after having been determined that all education should be directed and, if necessary, funded by government, they are now putting forward the idea that certain areas can be improved by enlisting the initiative of those who would like to put their personal money into education.
	In so far as the Bill is concerned almost entirely with environmental aspects of land management, that puts me firmly in the picture. I also participate as a farmer in environmental schemes related to the single farm payment, and those will no doubt form an important part of the delivery that is intended. But I ask whether enforcement, as allowed for under the Bill, in order to ensure compliance is really the way to achieve the variety and diversity for which this country is renowned.
	Reinforcing the point that I made earlier about the role of individuals, the Countryside Alliance voiced a useful criticism in its brief with regard to Clause 2 of the Bill, detailing the general purposes intended for Natural England. That fails to single out the fact that the economic contribution of the land may have a marked effect on the environment as well as on the sustainability, and that should receive adequate recognition.
	We have just come through the 50 post-war years when Europe has squeezed agriculture economically and the route offered for survival has been to increase production and increase the claims on government subsidy. Now, as the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, mentioned, the mid-term review has dramatically altered that. Production subsidies are in the past. Now, farmers can increase production but that will tend to be with the risk of being penalised if they exceed cross-compliance criteria, and the only government assistance that will be paid will be for the delivery of environmental benefits. That is a huge change of emphasis.
	Just last week, I experienced my first cross-compliance and second British Cattle Movement Service check within one year. The inspector's pro forma for good farming practice ran to 10 pages and the cross-compliance criteria took 20. That is for a herd of 109 cows and their youngstock. For the BCMS, we had to check their passports, their dam's identity and the identity of every animal that has moved on to the farm since 1990, and, finally, the inspector required someone to hang on to each cow's head while he checked the ear number. With every ear number being composed of 14 digits, I reckon that by the end of the day we had checked 29,000 digits, and I hope we got them right. There was the added confusion that one cow went missing in the summer—probably in a flood—and it was only by a process of elimination that we could be certain which one it was.
	The noble Lord, Lord Plumb, was concerned about what the countryside can afford in all these schemes that are being dreamt up. One hears of wonderful statistical gymnastics relating to the fact that the common agricultural policy takes 43 per cent of the Community budget and that that supports only 4 per cent of the working population. Only with considerable difficulty did I unearth the fact that the money that British agriculture received from Brussels in recent years was 0.57 per cent of the total United Kingdom government expenditure, to which the UK added 0.13 per cent from Treasury coffers to give a grand total of 0.7 per cent. I simply warn the noble Baroness, Lady Young, that, if she wishes to raid this rather generous pot, she will obviously have a hard job to see what she can get out of it.
	The farming industry in my part of the country is still trying to fathom the meaning of the new support structure for their individual businesses. What was threatened during the summer as a possible exodus of farming from the hills has not materialised, and most are sitting tight while they try to figure out what to do. My general impression is that much of what the Bill sets out to achieve in terms of the environment will come about under this new economic regime without many of the more draconian provisions that the Bill contains.
	Like my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith, I think that in Committee we shall want to explore in a little more detail what the Government see as the areas in which Natural England will expect to charge for its advice. What is the meaning of "licences" mentioned in Clause 11? When drawing up a management agreement for an SSSI, will the time spent by its staff be regarded as advice given? Similarly, when a request is made for carrying out listed operations on that same SSSI, will the granting of the approval come under the heading of advice? It will be rather strange if, in one case, it becomes the source of the advice for setting up the agreements and, at the same time, is the body to which the scheme is submitted for approval.
	As other noble Lords have mentioned, Clause 43 is another area where we would like to see a little more information about the Government's thinking on the level of pesticides that will be on the Secretary of State's list. Can the Minister give us any details of those? There would appear to be every chance that the Minister will list every chemical that could conceivably be a poison and then leave it to those who possess them to know under which of the pesticide Acts they can argue for their legitimacy. I can only think that there would be a great howl of dismay from gardeners if methiocarb appeared on that list, as they would be left having to rely on using up their beer supplies to top up traps made of jam jars, and so on, when they catch slugs.
	Like my noble friend Lady Byford, I should like to ask the Minister what thought has been given to possible conflicts of opinion between the two new organisations that are proposed and how they will be resolved. The Commission for Rural Communities will obviously be giving advice to the Secretary of State, who presumably comes under the heading of "a relevant person", and, from discussions in the other place, I see that the Minister was allowing that the rural advocate would speak directly to the Prime Minister. But that will merely relate to the social and economic needs of persons in rural areas. At that rate, the commission will presumably regard itself as having authority not just equal to but perhaps greater than that of Natural England. When the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, talked about the efforts to achieve a proper title for the body that was being set up, I wondered whether some wag thought that Natural England conjured up views of a large bunch of people running about covered with nothing else than a liberal coating of woad.
	Natural England has a whole clause laying out to whom it is likely to be required to give advice, but there is no mention of government or Ministers, although presumably that is whence its authority emanates.
	Social and economic well-being is only one of the five purposes of this body, and so it is almost bound to view things from a different perspective. It is therefore proposed, as my noble friend Lord Rotherwick suggested, that any and all differences will fall to be resolved by the Minister. If so, will she be required to inform Natural England if its advice has been rejected, as provided under Clause 5(3)?
	Like many speakers in the debate, we welcome considerable parts of the Bill but we have severe concerns over certain aspects of it. We look forward to being able to raise our worries, particularly on the Floor of the House.

Lord Bach: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this excellent Second Reading debate. The fantastic expertise in the House on this issue has been mentioned and well illustrated during the debate. I, too, draw particular reference to the speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter. We all listened to his maiden speech with great interest because he spoke with real expertise on the subject before us today.
	Looking at his curriculum vitae, it is clear that he has spent a number of years in Warwickshire, the county next door to the one in which I live. It happens, unfortunately for it, to be in the west Midlands rather than the east Midlands, but is still a beautiful county where agriculture plays an important part in people's everyday lives. We all enjoyed his speech and look forward to hearing from him on many occasions.
	My noble friend Lord Carter made a point abut the name Natural England. Knowing him as I do, I think he did so with his tongue in his cheek.

Lord Carter: My Lords, I was serious.

Lord Bach: My Lords, that makes me even more convinced that it was tongue in cheek. It seemed to take the attention of other noble Lords, however. I can confirm that the name "Natural England" was proposed by the chairmen of the three predecessor bodies, following consultation with staff and stakeholders. The problem with his alternative, "the commission for rural environment" raises quite an important point which has already been mentioned. Natural England's remit will cover rural, urban and coastal areas from seabed to mountaintop. It will be empowered to take an integrated landscape-scale approach to sustainable environmental management. So "the commission for rural environment" will not do, but I advise him against putting down an amendment to call it "Unnatural England".
	The noble Earl, Lord Selborne, mentioned the Marine Bill. We very much agree with what he said on that, and it is our intention, everything else being normal, that we will have such a Bill before Parliament in the next Session. Of course, he knows that that is not a guarantee, but it is our intention.
	The Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill is the foundation for our plans to achieve the agenda set out in the rural strategy and the rural manifesto. It will provide the legislative framework to help us realise our vision of thriving rural communities, fair access to services for all in the countryside and rich, diverse landscapes managed and enhanced for current and future generations.
	I was delighted that there seems to have been general support in this House this afternoon for an important Bill. It has not been universal, and, of course, all the support had some reservations, as it no doubt should. I do not think anyone listening to this debate, however, could say that there was anything other than general support for the Bill. It will benefit rural businesses, rural people and people enjoying the countryside and the coast, with Natural England providing a single co-ordinated approach to access and nature. It will benefit the environment through better sustainable management. Last but not least, it will benefit the taxpayer, with more efficient and effective administration. Implementing the change programme as a whole will save roughly £21 million each year by 2009–10, and more beyond.
	The Bill will provide a flexible delivery framework that is both fit for purpose today and able to evolve. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich wanted this Bill and the organisations to stand for some time. That is our clear intention. We will not be revisiting this year on year. Rather, we want these organisations to stand the test of time. If they do not, of course, any government will have to come back and mend the situation, but that is our intent.
	Of course, I recognise from the debate today that there are areas of the Bill that noble Lords will want to give very close scrutiny indeed. I look forward to discussing these in closer detail in Committee. In the available time, I shall now address some of the points made during the debate. No doubt time will prevent me from covering everything.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, wanted to know why there was so much in Schedule 11, with all these minor consequences. The reason is simple. The large number of minor, inconsequential amendments contained in that schedule is needed to substitute references to English Nature, nature conservation councils and the Countryside Agency by references to Natural England. We have taken the valuable opportunity, with this important Bill, to tidy up the statue book. The department has assisted the House with reproducing the changes within the five main Acts of Parliament, by placing the Acts as amended by this Bill—a document known to noble Lords as a Keeling schedule—in the House Library.
	The noble Baroness asked when noble Lords will have copies of the review of levy boards. The noble Baroness and her colleagues on the Liberal Democrat Front Benches will be invited to the event on Friday, when Rosemary Radcliffe will announce her report. I hope that copies will be available for all noble Lords in the usual way, either on Friday in the House or on Monday next week.
	I was asked about the Forestry Commission not being included in Natural England. We have heard today about the excellent work done by the Forestry Commission from its chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Clark of Windermere. We thought carefully about that recommendation. We thought that incorporating the functions of the Forestry Commission, a body with a very wide range of responsibilities across Great Britain, as we have heard, including managing the public forests estate, would have added a further level of complexity and risk. So we decided not to take that course.
	Why did we not get rid of the Countryside Agency, as recommended by the noble Lord, Lord Haskins? The noble Lord's criticism of the Countryside Agency was that it was unwieldy, poorly focused and expensive. That no doubt reflected widespread feeling at the time of the review. The Government's decision to establish the CRC to take and build on some of the agency's functions, however, is a bold measure that will address the needs of rural communities and those who live and work in them. There is a role for a strong and independent rural advocate to advise on issues affecting rural communities. Therefore, the Commission for Rural Communities will be a small, expert body, to provide strong, independent and impartial advice to the Government, and act as a watchdog.
	I was asked why the Environment Agency was outside the remit of the review of rural delivery of the noble Lord, Lord Haskins. It was not. The noble Lord's terms of reference were very wide, relating to delivery arrangements for Defra's rural policies in the round. They included, in Annex 9, looking at the activities of the Environment Agency in so far as their work relates to the delivery of Defra's rural policies. Recommendation 17 of the review relates to the Environment Agency and the relationship it will have with Natural England.
	How will English Nature's independence be preserved? This is an important issue, raised by many noble Lords, starting with the noble Baroness, Lady Byford. I repeat what I said earlier: Natural England will be no less independent than its predecessor bodies. However, like its predecessors, as an appointed rather than elected body, Ministers remain accountable to Parliament for Natural England's effective and efficient use of public money. Directions provide an important part of this chain of accountability. There is nothing new here. In fact, the briefing issued by the bodies that will make up Natural England is quite illuminating. They welcome the reassurance given in Clauses 15 and/or 16 by the requirement to consult the transparency of publication and specificity of the obligations set out therein. They say that these reassurances are, if anything, greater than those currently applying to English Nature and the Countryside Agency, which have never been accused of lacking independence, and have a strong track record of influential policy advice.
	Why are the RDAs not part of Schedule 7, or in the Bill? The Secretary of State may delegate functions to regional development agencies under Section 6 of the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998. It is already in legislation.
	The noble Earl, Lord Selborne, raised important points—as did other noble Lords—about the CRC. He said that we know what the real issues are, and that what we need is a delivery body which will focus on championing best practice, not a talking shop.
	The CRC needs research powers to be able to undertake its functions of representation, advice and monitoring. It needs to be able to investigate particular issues affecting rural people so that its pronouncements are evidence-based and objective. I remind noble Lords what the Secretary of State said in her first response to the Haskins report. She pledged that the CRC would be,
	"reporting on best practice in the delivery of the Government's rural policies".
	The CRC will need to inform and engender debate, but that is not a talking-shop role; it is about exercising influence and applying its knowledge and expertise. I was grateful for the quite wide support for the CRC from all sides of the House, including the noble Earl, Lord Peel, the right reverend Prelates, the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, of course, and others.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, asked why the CRC, not local authorities, would have responsibility for rural policy and delivery. In acting as an advocate for rural communities, the CRC will seek to establish a national position that, frankly, would be beyond any individual local authority, and will have a single-minded focus on rural matters. It will need to challenge local authorities as deliverers of those services and to work with local partners to draw on their specific experience and expertise as appropriate. We do not think that that function could be easily picked up by local authorities.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, will the Minister allow me to make a brief point?

Lord Bach: My Lords, I hope that it is brief because I want to finish within 20 minutes.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, the Minister indicated that the CRC would report, but we have never had a debate on the rural White Paper of 2000. Some of us are concerned that the matter will not come back to Parliament.

Lord Bach: My Lords, I understand the noble Baroness's point.
	My noble friend Lord Carter asked, without the CRC, who would monitor the rural-proofing activities of Defra, other government departments and local authorities. We agree with him: who else would do it?
	I have already spoken on costs but I will write to the noble Baroness with more detail. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, raised an important debate about conflict resolution, and other noble Lords joined in. Earlier I said that I wanted Natural England to be a trenchant champion of the environment. I hope that noble Lords will find it reassuring that the Sandford principle will continue to apply in national parks and that in nature reserves and sites of special scientific interest the strong presumption that biodiversity considerations take precedence will continue. That is vital in those important areas, where the value of local biodiversity and landscape has been clearly identified through due process.
	However, Natural England's remit extends outside those areas to cover England's entire land mass. The general purpose gives Natural England the role of ensuring that the natural environment is conserved, enhanced and managed for the benefit of present and future generations. No one reading that purpose can doubt that Natural England is an environmental organisation. Natural England's decision-making context will be sustainable development. Through its environmental work, Natural England will actively seek economic and social benefits. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, our aim is not to restrict the membership of Natural England to a narrow group of interests. I know that that matter concerns him.
	I told noble Lords that I would say something about byways, and I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I spend the rest of my time bringing them up to date with information that came to me after my opening speech. I said that I hoped shortly to be able to make an announcement on commencement of the rights of way provisions and how we intend to deal with outstanding claims for byways open to all traffic. I am pleased to say that we have completed our deliberations and to make the following announcement. We propose to commence the provisions at the date of Royal Assent. We intend to deal with any claims for byways open to all traffic submitted to local authorities before the commencement date as follows. Our aim is to prevent local authorities being inundated with byway claims to defeat the legislation. However, we must also take into account that there are byway claims outstanding simply because it takes an appreciable amount of time to process them. Also many have been outstanding for some time because some local authorities have not processed them as quickly as they might.
	Given those circumstances, we consider it fair and reasonable to limit the transitional provisions for byway claims so that only claims submitted prior to the Bill's introduction, on 19 May 2005, will be preserved, apart from two exceptions. First, we think it reasonable to provide for byway claims made after 19 May to be preserved in cases where the local authority has already reached the stage of determining the claim and has made a definitive map modification order. We believe that few, if any, claims made after 19 May will have reached that stage. Secondly, not forgetting that the concern about the use of mechanically propelled vehicles on rights of way is about non-essential or recreational use, there is a strong argument for preserving claims where they are made by property owners seeking to establish a public right to their property to provide them with legal certainty.
	We recognise that those transitional provisions will leave a significant number of outstanding BOAT claims in some counties, particularly Wiltshire, Hampshire, Derbyshire and Somerset. There is no reason why traffic regulation orders cannot be put into effect before motor vehicular rights are established. Those authorities should look at how to make the best use of those powers to manage any problematical use of those byways while claims are being processed.
	That is our present intention. I have no doubt that the matter will be raised in Committee, where it would be appropriate to do so, but I hope that the House feels that it has up-to-date information. Once again, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this Second Reading. I look forward to meeting all of you, some of you, or maybe even more, in Committee in due course. I commend the Bill to the House.
	On Question, Bill read a second time.

Water Services etc. (Scotland) Act 2005 (Consequential Provisions and Modifications) Order 2005

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 10 October be approved [5th Report from the Joint Committee].

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, noble Lords will be delighted to hear that I plan to speak only for a few minutes, as the instrument is straightforward. The instrument is made under Section 104 of the Scotland Act. It is made in consequence of the Water Services etc. (Scotland) Act 2005—"the 2005 Act". It was considered and approved by the other place on 2 November. Noble Lords will be familiar by now with Section 104 orders. They are used when changes are required to the law of England and Wales or Northern Ireland, or when modifications of reserved law are required as a consequence of legislation in the Scottish Parliament. Such changes would of course be outside the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament.
	The 2005 Act reformed economic regulation of the Scottish water industry to make it more transparent and accountable. That included replacing the individual Water Industry Commissioner with a body corporate, the Water Industry Commission for Scotland. The Act gives the new Water Industry Commission power to determine Scottish Water's charges, on the basis of investment objectives and charging policy set by Scottish Executive Ministers.
	The purpose of the order is to provide a right of reference to the Competition Commission in relation to two of the Water Industry Commission's functions: first, determination of the limits of Scottish Water's charges for providing public water and sewerage services in Scotland; and, secondly, decisions to grant retail water services or sewerage services licences or to modify licence conditions.
	So the order balances the new power for the Water Industry Commission provided in the 2005 Act by making it accountable to the Competition Commission. The Government and the Scottish Executive have agreed that that is desirable, as the Competition Commission has the economic expertise to provide effective scrutiny of the Water Industry Commission's decisions. This order will give it the power to do so. Noble Lords may wish to note that there is a similar right of reference to the Competition Commission under the equivalent English and Welsh water legislation. Where the Competition Commission does not agree with the Water Industry Commission's decision, it is given the power to recommend modifications to that decision and, ultimately, to replace the Water Industry Commission's decision with its own. Finally, the order makes consequential amendments to a number of enactments to make reference to the new Water Industry Commission and the new powers of the Competition Commission.
	The Competition Commission, the Water Industry Commission and Scottish Water have been consulted on the terms of the order and the principle of the proposal. All have agreed this is a sensible measure that they support. I therefore commend the order to the House. I beg to move.
	Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 10 October be approved [5th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Evans of Temple Guiting.)

The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing this matter before the House. It is nice to think that we are of a mind to assist the Scottish Parliament, which has obviously come up with this new structure that it feels will be more transparent. I am interested to hear that it is a parallel with what exists in England and being able to refer to the Competition Commission is obviously worthwhile. To begin with, I wondered whether it was a parallel to Ofwat, but the Scots have obviously done without Ofwat and do not need that element.
	In the Scottish context, it is quite a challenge to determine the correct price for water charges because such a large part of the expense of providing water is the capital. What the correct charges will be will greatly depend on how that is regarded. The only thing I would say is that I hope that, as they have come up with a government body called "WIC", it will not mean that the citizens of Thurso feel slighted.

Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, though I no longer represent Wick or, for that matter, Thurso, I dare say my representation of both for 35 years may colour my thoughts about this measure.
	I express my gratitude to the Minister for his summary and description of the purposes of the order. I make no complaint about the procedure, which seems to be entirely comprehensible. Notwithstanding that, I do not entirely accept his view that this is a clear measure in its effect. As is often the case, the provisions of the order are comprehensible only by reference to other legislation. That is, perhaps, unavoidable, but none the less it does not assist those who want to understand it. That must be the whole pattern of how this scheme operates.
	The question that this order gives rise to in my mind is whether what is proposed deals with what many people would regard as the greatest danger in the regulation of public utilities; that is, the danger of regulatory capture. While it is true that the aggrieved deliverer of water services is given a right of appeal beyond any decisions of the Water Industry Commission, it is much less clear whether this measure provides a remedy for the users of water. The appellant who seeks a reference is either Scottish Water or the water and sewerage authorities whose licences may be questioned, modified or otherwise affected by a decision of WIC. I have to be extremely tentative in putting forward this query, which is not so much an objection to the order as an invitation to the Minister to clarify how he considers the interest of the ultimate consumer is assisted in practice by this schema.
	It is obvious that the WIC exists to exercise public interest considerations and it, and ultimately the Competition Commission, if it is considering the issues, will consider the impact on the user. Although well established in competition law and in the practice of regulated utilities in the rest of the United Kingdom, to give to the right of appeal only to one side of the equation seems to be something that requires just the slightest expression of doubt. That is what I am seeking to do through this short debate.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I may appear very ignorant about the way Section 104 orders work, but I do not understand the utility of what has been done in this case. I appreciate that, under Section 104 of the Scotland Act, the Secretary of State can make orders to change reserved law as a result of devolved law passed at Holyrood. But, as I see it, this order is not altering reserved law; it is adding to the Act passed at Holyrood in 2005. That Act was passed only in March, so why was this provision about reference to the Competition Commission not in it? Was it because it incorporated something to do with the Competition Commission, which is not devolved? Is that the reason? If not, why was this provision not incorporated? Secondly, how does somebody who wants to know how to make a reference to the Competition Commission know that this order exists? As I understand it, it is not attached in any way to the 2005 Act, nor to the legislation under which the Competition Commission operates. Can the Minister clarify exactly how this works? It seems to be a very confusing process and, if this is the result of Section 104, I wonder whether it is a particularly good idea and whether we ought to make it more effective.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, for his welcome for this order. He usually finds a number of questions to ask me, so I am grateful that he made short, elegant speech and seems happy with this order. On the other hand, the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, has two concerns that I hope I will be able to answer. He made the point that the order is not clear in its effect. In fact, the order was accompanied by an Explanatory Memorandum that the Government believe is a useful and straightforward explanation. If we can acquire a copy for the noble Lord, I am sure that he will understand exactly the effect of the order.

Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, in making that generous offer, I hope that the Minister is not implying that I do not have the Explanatory Memorandum to hand and have not studied it closely. He will note that, as is the case with practically every explanatory note explaining an order, it uses almost explicitly the language of the order itself and frequently seeks to explain by reference to it.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, that is a very fair point. I set a trap and fell into it myself. I will get my colleagues in the Box to write a letter to the noble Lord to try and help with the genuine anxieties he has raised.
	The noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, asked what gives Scottish Water a right of appeal and who represents the customers' interests. The Water Industry Commission's primary duty, set out in the Water Industry (Scotland) Act 2002, is to promote the interests of the potential customers of Scottish Water, including those to be served by licence providers in the future. Within the investment objectives and charging policy set up by Scottish Ministers, the WIC is required to fund Scottish Water so that it can carry out its functions at the lowest reasonable overall cost. That means that WIC must only allow Scottish Water the funds that it requires to carry out its functions efficiently. If Scottish Water fails to deliver efficiently, these costs must be met by the owners, Scottish Ministers, through increased government lending to Scottish Water. I think that the customer is pretty well connected. There is quite a bit more briefing on that point, but I will send it to the noble Lord.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, asked why this provision was not made by the Scottish Parliament. The Competition Commission's role and functions are reserved to the UK Parliament and cannot be altered by an Act of the Scottish Parliament. The Scottish Parliament scrutinised this aspect of the policy during their consideration of the Water Services etc. (Scotland) Act 2005, including hearing evidence from the Competition Commission. The noble Baroness also asked a question which I think she has asked before—whether we should be reviewing Section 105 of the Water Industry (Scotland) Act. That provides for subordinate legislation to be made in the UK Parliament which contains provision which is necessary or expedient in consequence of any act of the Scottish Parliament. These provisions are usually outside the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament.
	To be effective, an ASP may require consequential provision to be made to the law relating to reserved matters or the law elsewhere in the UK, such as, for example, to make cross-Border provision for prisoners. The legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament to make consequential provisions like this is limited. It can make consequential amendments of the law on reserved matters, but can only do so in limited circumstances and, crucially, as a matter of Scots law. I hope that answers the concern of the noble Baroness.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

New Opportunities Fund (Specification of Initiatives) (No. 2) Order 2005

Lord Davies of Oldham: rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 11 October be approved [5th Report from the Joint Committee].

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the order is required to allow the New Opportunities Fund (NOF) to continue to distribute lottery money for good causes in education, health and the environment. As your Lordships will know, the New Opportunities Fund has operated jointly under the name of the Big Lottery Fund since June 2004 with the Community Fund as an administrative merger. That in no way anticipates the National Lottery Bill yet to come before the House, although, should Parliament approve it, the joint working arrangement will be replaced by a new single body operating under its own statutory provisions.
	NOF and the Community Fund remain distinct legal bodies, working within the powers and duties conferred on them by the National Lottery etc. Act 1993. The powers under which each operates are distinct. Parliament created a framework for the Community Fund that gives it wide discretion to continue indefinitely, and, while it has money to do so, to make grants within its good cause. That is subject only to directions from the Secretary of State that it must take into account.
	The framework for the New Opportunities Fund is different. Legislation dating from 1998 provides for the NOF to distribute money only to projects designed to give effect to initiatives specified in an order by the Secretary of State under Section 43B of the National Lottery etc. Act 1993. NOF's existing orders relate to specific funding initiatives that are either coming to an end or are too narrowly prescribed to allow a full range of funding, hence the need for the order.
	The order will allow the New Opportunities Fund and the Community Fund, working as the Big Lottery Fund, to launch new programmes and deliver the funding themes, outcomes and priorities agreed with the Government. Alongside the order, we will issue new policy directions to NOF and the Community Fund. Those documents will mirror as closely as possible those that will be issued to the Big Lottery Fund following enactment of the National Lottery Bill.
	The order does not pre-empt consideration of the Bill in any way. It is an interim measure to allow the New Opportunities Fund to continue getting lottery money out to deserving projects all over the country. The order specifies new funding initiatives for NOF, based on three high-level themes: an initiative to promote community learning; an initiative to promote community safety and cohesion; and an initiative to promote physical and mental well-being.
	The Big Lottery Fund has consulted on the three themes. There were over 850 responses, with approximately 630 going on to answer the questionnaire. Some 50 per cent of responses were from voluntary and community sector organisations, and 21 per cent were from local authorities, with the remainder a mix of public bodies. The majority of respondents—58 per cent—agreed that the themes provided a sensible and flexible strategic framework for future funding. Only 5 per cent expressed disagreement.
	The order repeals NOF's existing initiative orders except the order relating to transformational grants. We are satisfied that all NOF's other programmes being carried out under the existing initiative orders can be carried out within the three main initiatives set out in the order, with one exception—the small grants scheme, Awards for All. Therefore, we are retaining the initiative that relates to such grants in this new initiative order.
	The order reflects the Government's policy of reducing prescription and setting only high-level themes of funding. The order is therefore very different from the type of order that was sometimes issued to NOF in the past, which set out very specific funding initiatives, such as the initiative to train teachers and library staff to use information and communication technology in order to assist learning. The order and the accompanying directions will allow the New Opportunities Fund full scope to make decisions on programmes, choose delivery systems, identify partners and select projects, informed by intensive public consultation. That said, the order is also sufficiently clear to allow the fund to know what it can and cannot fund. Importantly, the terms used in the order are well understood by both the fund and the wider voluntary and community sector that it funds.
	Consultation on the draft order and directions ended on 30 September. A wide consultation was carried out. No substantive comments were made on the order, and there was broad support for the directions, with a majority of respondents welcoming the opportunity to comment. We plan to make one change to the directions as a result of the consultation, and copies of the revised directions have been made available to noble Lords for information. We also published the results of the consultation on our website.
	We need the order so that the Big Lottery Fund can launch its new programmes. The fund will distribute more than £2.3 billion in 2006–09. It hopes to begin launching new programmes as soon as the new order and policy directions are in place. Programmes have been identified following two public consultations, and the fund will continue to discuss them with stakeholders as they are developed. The context for all the programmes is the fund's mission to improve communities and the lives of people most in need. Programmes will deliver the funding themes set out in the order. They will also help to achieve the four outcomes and funding priorities set out in the policy directions. There will be demand-led and strategic programmes. Demand-led programmes will encourage organisations and groups to bring forward their ideas and local solutions for funding. The strategic programmes will focus more on the outcomes that the fund wants its funding to achieve, although it will still encourage local solutions to local needs.
	Full details of the planned programmes are on the website. They include up to £150 million to support the voluntary community sector infrastructure; £155 million for children's play; up to £354 million for environmental projects; and up to £165 million for the well-being programmes.
	The statutory instrument will empower the Big Lottery Fund to launch its programmes and to make a real difference to communities and citizens the length and breadth of the country. It and the programmes that will be launched as a result have been subject to unprecedented public consultation and input from stakeholders. Accordingly, I commend the order to the House. I beg to move.
	Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 11 October be approved [5th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Davies of Oldham.)

Viscount Astor: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Davies, for introducing the order. He could have opened his speech by saying that the order is really the cart before the horse, because the National Lottery Bill now before another place was first introduced last November. It failed to make progress through another place. In the mean time, the Government set up the Big Lottery Fund, in effect to merge the New Opportunities Fund and the Community Fund, but failed to recognise that their legislation would not be in place in time. As a result, they have had to introduce the order, which gives us a wonderful opportunity to make a substantial attack on the Government on how they have tinkered with the lottery. They are increasing government control over the direction and distribution of the funds, which means less money for the original good causes. They have breached the additionality principle, and there has been falling public confidence in the lottery. However, the Minister will be glad to know that I shall leave that for another day, because the National Lottery Bill will appear in this House.
	The original Bill came here in 1993, and my noble friend Lord Ferrers and I took it through the House. I can assure noble Lords that we had quite a difficult time. We were then attacked by the Labour Party on the principles of additionality and various others, and I must say that we will throw their words back at them when the Bill comes before the House. They may have a rather difficult time. So the noble Lord has much to look forward to in future.
	Anyway, the order is necessary because the Government have created the Big Lottery Fund. I do not disagree with that. Sometimes the Community Fund's grants were bizarre, and it brought itself into, not so much disrepute but ridicule by some of the things that it did. I think that we would all agree that the Big Lottery Fund is a good idea. I do not think that any of us on the Opposition Benches believe that the Government should interfere through directions by the Secretary of State in where the money goes. That is wrong. That is something that we will have to deal with in future when the National Lottery Bill comes before the House.
	I have only one simple question for the Minister. He said that this was an interim measure. That may be. In the last Parliament, the National Lottery Bill failed. What happens if it does not arrive here during this one? Does the order continue? I should be interested to hear the Minister's response.

Lord Addington: My Lords, comments having some fun with carts and horses being placed in various places were a great temptation on the order. However, as the noble Viscount said, there is really no point. It is a legal mess caused by the slow progress of the Bill, so the order is basically just holding ground. I think that the Bill has just got out of Standing Committee A in another place. We really do not know what we are doing with it.
	Reading the order, Article 2(2) caught my eye. It states:
	"The reference in this Order to promoting community safety is to making communities places in which it is, or is perceived to be, safer to live and to work, in particular by the reduction of actual or perceived levels of crime and other anti-social behaviour".
	Let us face it, additionality—expanding beyond the base—started when the idea of the lottery started. It has gone to a ridiculous level. Surely, from local government upwards, every department of state concerned with law and order should be dealing with the content of Article 2(2). If the National Lottery is always seen to have things taken away, when there is a crisis in its funding or it over-extends its grasp, there will be a problem in maintaining those projects.
	Ticket sales are going well, although they have gone badly. They can go well in the future. When someone comes up with a nice, money-spinning virtue of small stake/big reward, eventually there will be a problem, especially if we expand in this way. It will go wrong at some time. I hope that I am not around when it does.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful for both contributions to the debate, although I would be hard-pressed to define them as entirely supportive. The order may be a wee thing, but it is a most attractive cart to put before any horse. I want it judged on its attraction in its own right.
	The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, had a great deal of fun about the problems that we had with regard to the Bill, which, as he rightly said, is still in Committee in the other place. Although he is not unaware of such things, I should like to point out that general elections have that effect on legislative programmes. He will also know that governments with secure majorities do not hold general elections much more often than once every four years. Therefore, it is unlikely that our present programme will run into the same obvious difficulties that occurred in March.
	The noble Viscount can rest assured that there are no real worries that the legislation to put in place all the requisite parts to which the order refers will be in place next year, subject of course to the will of Parliament. I am conscious of the fact that we will have much debate during the passage of the Bill. As the noble Viscount suggested, I have a lot to look forward to. My blood chilled as he spoke, but it absolutely froze when the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, nodded in agreement. That seemed like a double onslaught, to which I am ill equipped to respond at this stage. We will face those difficulties when they arise. In the mean time, the order has much to commend it and will enable good work to go on.
	I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Addington, says about the old canard regarding additionality. The most obvious point is that there are many communities with which he will be acquainted, and certainly one that I know extremely well, which often put forward ideas on how the environment could be enhanced to improve the defence of the community against the ravages of vandals and people engaged in petty crime. It is not the case that central government can anticipate every dimension of that. It is certainly the case that central government gives resources when the local authority is entitled to raise its resources to meet those challenges. However, at times, local initiatives come forward where, for instance, people build—as they frequently do as a result of voluntary activity—their local village hall. I was in one only five months ago which was an absolutely magnificent structure. It had been built with £300,000 raised by the local community, which is a tidy sum. The local authority was as generous in its support as it could be, but I did not baulk at the fact that an element of that money came from lottery funds. We were rewarding initiative, enterprise, activity and achievement with extra support which made the project look even better than it otherwise would have done. I cannot see that that is a concept of additionality that ought to disturb the House, but, surely, it is one that we should all welcome.
	I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said. Of course, he, too, will be breathing fire and fury with regard to the Bill when it comes before the House. But if noble Lords will forgive me, sufficient unto the day is the heat thereof. I do not intend to face that just yet. I will deal with this order today and commend it to the House.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Special Advisers

Baroness Wilcox: rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they propose to make any changes in the number and role of special advisers involved in Government decision-making.
	My Lords, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to ask this Question in your Lordships' House. I start by stating clearly that I see nothing wrong with governments using special advisers. Our Conservative government had them in modest numbers and I believe that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, the Leader of the Liberal Democrats in this House, and speaking here today, was a political adviser to Lord Callaghan from 1974 to 1979. I hope that when he has heard what I have to say he will agree that special advisers, like leaven in the bread, should be used sparingly.
	I have tabled this Question because I believe that this Government are fundamentally changing the way in which Britain is governed through the greatly increased use of special advisers and by the powers they are increasingly being given. Since 1997, the number of politically appointed special advisers has doubled. The cost of employing them has risen fivefold during this Government's time. Special advisers are increasingly taking on responsibilities that were previously the preserve of Ministers. The Treasury, the Home Office, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Northern Ireland Office have all sent special advisers abroad without Ministers. Some departments have admitted that special advisers have been making speeches, holding meetings, appearing before Select Committees and making appearances to the media.
	I do not doubt that the Government will claim that these special advisers were acting,
	"in accordance with the Code of Conduct",
	but they cannot lightly brush away facts which are becoming more and more uncomfortable. Since Labour came to power there has been a qualitative change in the role of special advisers, as well as a quantitative increase in their numbers. Of that, there can be no doubt.
	The Labour Party manifesto for the 2001 general election stated:
	"Our civil service is world-renowned for its independence. Labour is committed to maintaining the political impartiality of the civil service. But it needs reform to make it more effective and more entrepreneurial. There have been important reforms already. We want to take further radical steps to ensure the civil service has the skills base necessary to meet the challenges set out in this manifesto".
	The Government bowed to pressure from the Select Committee on Public Administration in the other place by issuing in November 2004 a consultation paper about bringing forward the Civil Service legislation implicit in that manifesto and explicitly promised by the Deputy Prime Minister and others in 2002. However, so far as I can see, the Labour Party manifesto for this year's general election was completely silent on the matter. Was this because the "radical steps" were already in hand through the increasing number of special advisers and the growth of their powers?
	A wise man once said, "If we do not change direction soon, we're going to end up where we're heading". However, the drip-drip change of the Government's practice on special advisers makes it hard to see where we are heading. Can the Minister state that the Government will never contemplate a move to an American-style system in which whole tranches of civil servants are changed on a change of government? As noted in last November's consultation paper, the final paragraph of the 1854 Northcote-Trevelyan report contained the telling words that the existing Civil Service system,
	"is supported by long usage and powerful interests; and were any Government to introduce material alterations into it, in consequence of their own convictions without taking the precaution to give those alterations the force of law, it is almost certain that they would be imperceptibly, or perhaps avowedly, abandoned by their successors, if they were not even allowed to fall into disuse by the very Government which had originated them".
	I hope that the Government will soon be able to conclude that the proposed Civil Service Bill is now essential, and I am sure your Lordships' House looks forward to debating those important matters in detail. However, much of the thrust of the Government's November 2004 consultation paper on a draft Civil Service Bill seems to be about a more effective vehicle for the delivery of better public services. Whatever views there may be on that, I invite the Minister to agree that a real distinction should be made between on the one hand developing new policies, and on the other, administering the services that deliver them.
	It must be very congenial for Ministers to be surrounded, one might even say protected, by completely like-minded special advisers, but I have to say that yes-men seem unlikely to test policy proposals with the rigour necessary to ensure that results are practicable and effective in the real and very diverse society outside Whitehall. It seems to me that this is where what the 2004 consultation paper termed the "enduring values of the Civil Service" are most needed.
	Paragraph 10 of that paper set out those values with some rubrics in the following terms:
	"a. incorruptibility and integrity—advice and decisions are not influenced by considerations of personal gain;
	b. impartiality—governments can come into office knowing that their policies and programmes will be put into action from the start. But at the same time civil servants owe neither their jobs nor their prospects to the influence of political parties, lobbyists, business or other interest groups;
	c. honesty and objectivity—honest and full advice is given based on the best available information so that decisions are as well-founded as possible".
	Will the Minister accept that it is hard to see how politically appointed special advisers fully fit that prescription?
	Will he also accept that when civil servants debate policy proposals with Ministers it is not to be difficult or obstructive? They are simply doing their job in the policy development process to help ensure that the resulting programmes not only deliver the intended results but also do so in a practical and cost effective manner. Will he accept that, whatever the nature of such private discussions, part of Civil Service professionalism is faithfully to promote and defend government policies when in public?
	Finally, it seems to me that the key point is—while accepting the need for Ministers to have in-house political advice—to make it clear that such advice is no substitute for the impartial advice of professional civil servants who, when allowed access and time to do their job properly, can assist Ministers to develop effective policies, together with strategies for their implementation. In giving special advisers too great a role, the Government seem determined to measure effectiveness by headlines and column inches rather than the real impact in the country. I look forward to the Minister's reply.

Lord Sheldon: My Lords, in her effective speech the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, spoke of the change in the role and numbers of special advisers, and there have been some fundamental changes to which I want to refer. However, perhaps I may first refer to the Committee on the Civil Service, on which I had the pleasure to sit from 1966 to 1968, nearly 40 years ago. Its report referred at paragraph 129 to personal appointments by Ministers. It stated:
	"Several times in recent years Ministers have brought in professional experts and advisers of their own".
	This is in the early stages of special advisers.
	"These have been personal appointments in the sense that they have been individuals known to the Ministers concerned, who have judged that their individual qualities and experience could be of special help to them in their departments. We welcome this practice as a means of bringing new men and ideas into the service of the State. We are satisfied that a Minister should be able to employ on a temporary basis such small numbers of experts as he personally considers he needs to help and advise him. They should be men and women of standing and experience".
	That is the position as it was, and it was particularly valuable then.
	I was for a period in 1974, between the two general elections at that time, the Minister who handled the Civil Service. The Civil Service Minister was the Prime Minister, of course, but he gave me the job for six months. I had an unusual time in Winston Churchill's War Rooms, which I occupied for six months, and enjoyed my experience there. But most important of all was the number of matters that needed to be looked at, one of which was the conditions and pay of the special advisers who were being brought in, although in small numbers. There were some very good ones—there was Nicky Kaldor, Tommy Balogh, Jack Straw—and I had to settle the pay of them all. But there were some who were very poor special advisers and they got very small sums indeed. One of them received only £2,000 a year for a full time job. Even in the money of those times, it was not very much.
	The situation then, and the system that was in operation, was a modest one, but it worked reasonably well. There were people of some standing who added to the weight of Ministers when they came to make their decisions. They were able to get advice and suggestions from these people.
	In September, 2003, the Government announced the expansion of the role of special advisers, signalling a strange alteration of direction for a system which, for 40 years, had operated in a fairly steady way. There arose the problem of special advisers needing to be able, on behalf of their Ministers, to convey instructions and to commission works from civil servants. For the first time, special advisers acted between Ministers and the Civil Service, a role previously held exclusively by private secretaries. This was a fundamental change in direction. I shall return to it later in my speech.
	One difference between permanent civil servants and special advisers is that the latter are usually very strongly loyal to their Minister because their career depends on the relationship with him. They operate in a different way from civil servants, who will look to see that the Minister is successful, but do so in a more objective way. In a letter to the Cabinet Secretary on 20 May 2005, Sir Alistair Graham, chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, wrote about the need for special advisers to report to the Minister and not to intervene directly in the Civil Service in the way that is being seen so frequently. He mentioned,
	"the need for civil servants and special advisers to work collaboratively".
	He continued:
	"However, that is very different from inserting advisers formally into the hierarchy of the civil service even if only while they are doing a particular job. To do that would be to undermine the impartiality of the service and appointment on merit and, if it began to happen frequently, would discourage able people from committing to careers in the service".
	That is a real danger that we have seen.
	A further danger is the way in which special advisers are allowed to commission work from civil servants. That should come from the Minister; it is the Minister who should be doing that. He should be advised where necessary, of course, by the special advisers when it is so suitable. That is the way in which these things should be handled.
	Sir Alistair went on to say:
	"I am disappointed that the Government has not used this opportunity to adopt the Committee's recommendations to enable the investigation of complaints about alleged breaches of the Ministerial Code to carry public confidence".
	He called for,
	"the appointment of an individual office-holder to advise on ministerial interests; and, at the beginning of each parliament and in consultation with major opposition parties, the appointment of a panel of people of senior standing to be available to investigate alleged breaches of the Code".
	There is a very real need to make the whole of this process much more objective. There is far too strong a political input into these matters.
	For 150 years, we have had a Civil Service which has been the envy of the world. We are seeing a relative decline in some of those standards, which worries me very greatly. We need a proper examination of the role of the civil servant. I look forward to a Civil Service Bill, which is being strongly opposed by the Government as we well know. For a year, I have been pressing the Government on what is happening with their promised examination. I have put a number of questions to my noble friend the Minister, who does his best to answer, but I am afraid that he is limited in what he can say. We have been waiting for a Civil Service Bill for a year and I can see no sign of it on the horizon. That is quite disgraceful, because, in the mean time, the political aspect of the Civil Service has been growing and that worries me greatly.

Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Sheldon, speaks on these matters with great authority and I hope that the Government Front Bench will listen to what he has said.
	My noble friend Lady Wilcox has raised a very important issue; in the course of her speech, she said that the present Government are fundamentally changing the way in which this country is governed—I believe that I quote her accurately. I should like to follow that up. In my view, the proliferation of special advisers and perhaps more seriously the substantial extension of their roles is merely part of a much wider malaise lying at the heart of the governance of Britain today. I would describe that briefly as the erosion of the roles, status and workings of what we have in practice, and what were in earlier decades, the three main bastions against executive folly and excess.
	Those three bastions have always been, first, the Civil Service, to which the noble Lord, Lord Sheldon, referred. Its traditional role was to inform and advise Ministers, to help them to develop policy and to ensure that those policies could be delivered effectively. As I know from personal experience in five different government departments between 1970 and 1985, the established Civil Service used to perform that role with admirable objectivity, fairness and always with a strict adherence to the truth. It did not spin.
	The second bastion was the role of Cabinet, expressing the collective will of Ministers and able to restrain the ambition of individual Ministers, including when necessary the Prime Minister. From my own experience, I have to say that that included, on occasions, my noble friend Lady Thatcher.
	The third bastion was Parliament, where Ministers and departments had to secure majority support for their policies and where they could be held to account on behalf of the people. I believe that it is now widely recognised that all three of those constitutional bastions have been systematically devalued and marginalised to the point when—as we have seen in the past couple of weeks—it is a matter of surprised comment in the media when they are seen to be working effectively.
	I draw the House's attention to a recent book in which that case has been argued comprehensively and persuasively. The book is British Government in Crisis by Sir Christopher Foster, which I have no hesitation in commending to noble Lords. Lest it be thought that this book, from which I shall quote short passages, is the wild rant of some right-wing polemicist, I should make it clear that Sir Christopher, who was at one time one of my advisers, describes himself as a long-term Labour sympathiser. That should be borne in mind in the rest of what I say. I shall resist the temptation of reading long passages but shall confine myself to a few that are particularly relevant to this evening's debate.
	The opening words of the introduction spell out the thesis. They say:
	"We are badly governed. Some reasons for this are now widely acknowledged: Cabinet being replaced by prime ministerial government; the dominance of a political culture of spin; the rise of unelected special advisers and political cronies to positions of great power; the marginalising of Parliament and the substitution of the media as a 24 hour a day forum for political debate".
	That is just the first four lines of the book; it goes on in similar vein, but I shall not pursue that.
	In the following 300 pages of Sir Christopher's book, the evidence is spelt out with devastating clarity. He describes how most policy making has now been centred on No. 10 and the Treasury, with the Civil Service relegated to the role of delivering outcomes of policies that it has had little hand in formulating.
	On the role of civil servants—which is crucial to the debate, because it involves the relationship between them and the special advisers—I shall quote just two more passages.
	"After 1997 ministers seemed not to know how to use, certainly not to get the best from, them. Ministers disregarded the constitutional conventions by which they were expected to take all decisions openly with them."
	That is, with the civil servants.
	"Many ministers developed closer partnership relations with their special advisers. Civil servants felt manoeuvred out of work for which they had been trained."
	That included not just policy work, but the drafting of White Papers and so on. Sir Christopher goes on:
	"The most important and interesting policy work moved to No 10 and the Treasury, to special and outside advisers. Suggestions circulated that only young officials should expect to be involved in policy work, usually under the wing of special advisers. The more senior ones, if allowed to be involved in policy, were expected to see what they were doing as politically—and media-focused—as the special advisers did".
	This has been the experience of a great many established senior civil servants, and it flatly contradicts what is said in the Government's consultation paper on their draft Civil Service Bill, from which I quote one sentence:
	"permanent civil servants and their temporary colleagues, special advisers, have generally worked effectively together as part of a team led by the Cabinet Minister they both serve".
	Sir Christopher Foster, in this exhaustive study, contradicts that statement:
	"The relationship of partnership between ministers and civil servants—important for the effective despatch of business and constitutionally in helping ministers protect their integrity—has been replaced by close relationships between ministers and a new, unelected political class who are no longer just advisers, but powers. Though there are exceptions, relations between ministers and their political advisers at all levels are more important for policy and decision-making than those with their civil servants".
	There are many illustrations of this, but I will give just one, from a source to which I hope the Front Bench opposite will give some credence. The late Robin Cook recorded in his book, The Point of Departure, that he and other senior Ministers found themselves at meetings at No. 10 chaired, if you please, by a special adviser. Mr Cook records how the noble Lord, Lord Adonis—then, of course, Mr Adonis at the No. 10 office—chaired meetings with himself, Mr Cook, and the late Lord Williams of Mostyn. Such a thing would have been unheard-of in any government in which I served. It simply could not possibly have happened. I only need to ask the House to think what the late Lord Whitelaw would have made of that, or my noble friend Lord Carrington, if they had found themselves being chaired by a No. 10 special adviser.
	Like the noble Lord, Lord Sheldon, I had special advisers. Perhaps the most distinguished were my noble friend Lord Young of Graffham and, following him, my noble friend Lord Sterling of Plaistow. They never usurped the role of Ministers or of civil servants. They brought their long experience and great wisdom to bear on many of the issues that I faced as Secretary of State for Industry. It was the civil servants themselves who told me again and again just how valuable was the contribution they both made to the work of the department. I regard what has been happening in Whitehall in recent years as nothing short of a major constitutional scandal. I hope that the next Conservative government will put it right.

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I had the privilege during two years as Minister for the Cabinet Office to have some oversight and responsibility for the employment and condition of the 80 or so special advisers across government, like my noble friend Lord Sheldon before me. Additionally, I had the pleasure of working directly with dedicated and principled special advisers as a Minister at the Cabinet Office, at the Scottish Office and at the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, and in the Cabinet Office itself, where the co-ordinating role meant constant contact with advisers from all departments. We worked particularly closely with the team working for the Prime Minister in No. 10 Downing Street. I find it difficult, therefore, to recognise the process of government outlined by noble Lords opposite.
	Like my noble friend on the Front Bench tonight, Lord Bassam, I have had to reply in the past to your Lordships' concerns on the supposed growth in power or implied decline in standards among advisers. I therefore took some interest in the practice of previous administrations and their reputation in respect of the independence, impartiality and general morale of the Civil Service, qualities that Labour Governments since 1997 are regularly accused of trying to undermine.
	Faced with these allegations, I recall being grateful for the explanation—I think it was by the Cabinet Secretary in 1997, Sir Robin Butler, now Lord Butler of Brockwell—that the Civil Service Order in Council which permits the employment of special advisers in No. 10 with powers to manage and direct civil servants was simply formalising what had been under previous Conservative governments de facto practice—surely a welcome step towards better governance. I assume that the same impulse was also evident 20 years before when, as the noble Lord, Lord McNally, will recall, Harold Wilson first regularised the position of political advisers after taking office again in the mid-1970s. Since then the valuable role played by special advisers has been recognised by both subsequent administrations and watchdogs; in particular, that special advisers can handle the inevitably political dimensions of some ministerial activity, taking on the tasks that might otherwise be seen to compromise the political impartiality of civil servants.
	In response to the fears of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, I say that impartiality is particularly precious to those who felt it threatened during the Conservative governments of the 1980s. According to a Permanent Secretary of that time, Sir Anthony Part, Prime Minister Thatcher hoped that anyone who filled a top post in Whitehall would be, in her words, "One of us".

Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, does the noble Lord realise that that accusation was investigated thoroughly by the Royal Institute of Public Affairs and found to be without substance?

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, there is a received wisdom among the political opponents of the then Conservative government that there was surely a huge discouragement at times by that government of the independence and objectivity which the opposition party now claims to value so highly.
	For the parties then in opposition, the enduring importance of impartiality and probity in the Civil Service was indelibly etched in our minds by the experience of those years. My more recent experience in government suggests that the impartiality of the service is now better monitored both inside and out; its workings are more transparent, with civil servants in better heart; and it is now more trusted by the public than before. In passing, I note, sadly, that in the veracity index compiled by MORI and its pollsters, while trust in civil servants has almost doubled, from 25 per cent in 1983 to 46 per cent in 2003, trust in politicians has remained stuck for two decades at a lowly 18 per cent. In particular, I welcome the recent change in the Civil Service Order in Council to formalise what was always blindingly obvious; namely, that the key role of special advisers is to give more than advice to Ministers; it is to give assistance.
	Having worked for more than 30 years in the media—22 of them under Conservative governments—I know that one constant and vital role of the special adviser has been to brief the media. That has always been the reality yet it was not encompassed by the previous job description and defined as "advice". I am grateful that that has now been set out openly as "assistance". For me such assistance can encompass conveying instructions and commissioning works.
	Since they are political appointees, who come and go with their Cabinet Ministers, the activities of political advisers have always been fair game for political opponents and if some occasionally get a kicking, few would complain; that goes with the political territory. However, I believe that some of the rather repetitive point scoring which can afflict debates about the role of special advisers—although that is not too much in evidence tonight—diverts attention from the much more important debate about the changing role of the Civil Service. Surely no serious commentator imagines that a small band of about 80 special advisers—only one, Jonathan Powell, with executive authority—has somehow become an agency with the power and intent to threaten the integrity and tradition of 3,900 senior civil servants or the hundreds of thousands of others across central government. The world of government as described by noble Lords opposite is simply not recognisable from my personal experience. I hope that we can avoid the danger of this issue becoming something of an in-house obsession blown out of proportion and diverting attention from the real challenges facing Whitehall. It is far more important to look in future at the reforms required to ensure better delivery of policy and results by the Civil Service. Let us put the niggles about special advisers aside and spend the time in future examining the great efforts made by recent Cabinet Secretaries, Richard Wilson and Andrew Turnbull, to reshape the Civil Service for the 21st century.
	We on this side of your Lordships' House make no claim to have discovered the need for greater efficiency in Whitehall. We recall that Mrs Thatcher brought in a very special adviser to the Cabinet Office, Sir Derek Rayner, and how Rayner's raiders cut costs and reduced, quite dramatically, the size and influence of the Civil Service. I make no complaint. We no doubt benefit today from some of Rayner's reforms. But, alas, by the end of the 1980s the Civil Service was not only depleted but also demoralised and felt denigrated. Today we celebrate the public service ethos. Today we hope that efficiencies in Whitehall will lead to more staff working directly with their customers in the front lines of public services. These current reforms will surely help secure the great traditions set up by Northcote and Trevelyan in the 19th century. I trust that the new Cabinet Secretary, Sir Gus O'Donnell, will attract the support of your Lordships in building a broad political alliance behind his far-reaching programme of reform for the 21st century.
	I believe too that the Government's small but dedicated band of special advisers will continue to play a valuable role in these reforms and in aligning the political interests of Ministers with the best practice of our Civil Service as it carries out the wishes of the democratically elected politicians in government.

Lord McNally: My Lords, I am sure that the Minister will be grateful for that robust defence of government policy by the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald. The Minister should also welcome the fact that the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, said that she thought that special advisers were a good thing.
	Obviously there have been changes in the role of special advisers in recent years, but not as many as noble Lords might think. The noble Baroness referred to special advisers going abroad. I went to Rhodesia without a Minister to see Ian Smith for Jim Callaghan. I went to Atlanta when the Carter administration was elected—again without a ministerial "minder". When I worked in No. 10 an academic came to see me who said that he was writing a book which traced special advisers at least as far back as Lloyd George and his reforms of 1916 to 1922.
	What has changed—and the figures that have already been quoted illustrate this—is the increase from 38 special advisers to 81. More than half of that increase is accounted for by special advisers in No. 10 Downing Street; that has been the major increase. In most other departments it remains one, two or three advisers playing very much the role that they have always done, but in No. 10 there has been a massive increase and the role has been both as the enforcers and initiators of policy, rather in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, referred to.
	It is far better and healthier that the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, is now here answering questions at the Dispatch Box and defending his policy as a Minister rather than being tucked away in Downing Street chairing committees and initiating policy there, out of the reach of parliamentary scrutiny and accountability. The same problem is now arising with the noble Lord, Lord Birt, who is both a Member of this House and has some ill-defined role inside No. 10; and yet is outside the reach of parliamentary scrutiny, despite the efforts of the committee in another place to get him to testify. The noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, referred to the recent changes in Orders in Council. What he did not say was that Sir Alastair Graham, who has been referred to, in very strong language deplored the way that the Government had brought forward those Orders in Council in a way that again was outside the reach of parliamentary scrutiny and accountability.
	It is worthwhile keeping very clear the fact that under successive governments and over a very long period the role of special advisers has been beneficial both to the work of the government and to the special advisers themselves. One has only got to look at Government and Opposition Benches, certainly in the other place, to see how the experience of Whitehall given to special advisers has seeded both Government and Opposition Benches. Who knows—the next leader of the Conservative Party may have on his CV the fact that he was once a special adviser.
	As has been referred to, I had the honour of serving with Mr Callaghan from 1974 to 1979, and I found the relationship that I had with the Civil Service extremely constructive. It was almost entirely dependent on the fact that if a submission went to Mr Callaghan it would often come back just with, "Has Mr McNally seen this?" scribbled in the margin. After a while it became obvious that it got things done quicker if there was an element of co-operation before the Minister had to see it. The healthy contribution of special advisers is appreciated by civil servants, and many whom I have talked to have found that. What has caused problems is that long periods of government leave people in tenure for quite a long time, and that distorts both the role of the Civil Service and the role of the political appointees. We shall leave it to history to judge whether, "Is he one of us?" was ever actually said. It may be one of those great unsaid things, such as, "Play it again, Sam".
	Certainly the impression of the 1980s was of a Civil Service that had been more politicised. The noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, hinted that Labour came in in 1997 very nervous of what it thought of as a Conservative Civil Service. A lot of what was done then—the way the Chancellor kept key decisions to his political advisers, and the way the Prime Minister staffed No. 10 with special advisers—was an example of that suspicion. Of course mistakes were made. There is no better illustration of that than the fact that once Mr Alastair Campbell was out of No. 10, the odd role he was given as political spokesman and Civil Service director was split. It is now much healthier that David Hill handles the political part of that role, and Howell James the Civil Service part of it.
	I am keen that it come out of the debate that, if the system of political advisers is to work properly, we need a Civil Service Act to underpin the role of the traditional Civil Service. A number of speakers have said that. That is not because I think special advisers are taking over our government, but because the nature, role and task of the Civil Service are changing, as the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, said. I welcome the idea of a much more flexible Civil Service with people coming in more easily and at different stages of their career, and with civil servants moving out to get experience.
	When I came into the Lords 10 years ago, one of the first things that I did was to serve on a committee that sat in 1997 chaired by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn, which looked at the impact of the changes that had taken place in the Civil Service. The then new Labour government were more enthusiastic about that committee because they knew that we were going to examine the impact of the previous 18 years of Conservative government on the ethos of the Civil Service and the concept of public service. It would be interesting to see how enthusiastic the Government would be if the noble and learned Lord's committee or some other committee looked again at the impact of changes on the Civil Service.
	In some ways the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, was overly defensive; in some ways the attack of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, was a little too strident. However, the warning bells are there. It is wrong to ignore the concerns about the Civil Service and how some of the changes have impacted on it. The buck stops at No. 10. The Prime Minister has a very cavalier attitude towards Parliament and a continuing impatience with the Civil Service. Both are wrong. The Minister comes regularly to play a very straight bat and kill any spin to the ball but, if the Government will not provide a Civil Service Act, a Prime Minister in search of a legacy will find that history will judge him harshly because much of what he has done has damaged the ethos of the Civil Service. The noble Lord, Lord Sheldon, rightly once said that the Northcote-Trevelyan principle was one of the great gifts to the 21st century from our predecessors, and it needs to be underpinned and strengthened. I look forward to the Minister's reply.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am delighted to respond on behalf of the Government on this important issue. I listened with great interest to the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, and I also listened carefully to the comments of the noble Lords, Lord Sheldon and Lord Jenkin, my noble friend Lord Macdonald, and the noble Lord, Lord McNally. I was conscious of their breadth of experience and the different perspectives from which they come—from a ministerial role; offering fresh advice in an adviser role; as a respected Secretary of State with experience of the Civil Service; and, again, as a Minister in the 1960s—with their initial impressions and experience of the Civil Service and, then later, with responsibility in that field. That breadth of experience may not be immediately obvious when one looks at the names on the speakers' list.
	This is something of a specialist subject and we come to it almost monthly at Question Time and in our debates on consultation on the Civil Service Bill. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sheldon, in that regard. Over time, I have thought increasingly that a good deal of hysteria is whipped up on the subject. Perhaps not unfairly, given the history of the issue, that has rather blinded us to some of the most obvious points, and I thought that the noble Lord put his finger on that perfectly well in supplying us with the context of the debate.
	There are currently just 80 special advisers and, as my noble friend Lord Macdonald said, some 3,900 senior civil servants are located within Whitehall. But that ignores the many hundreds of thousands of civil servants throughout the country who do an important job and, in different ways, inform the views of the senior civil servants who operate much more closely to the centre. So, ultimately, we are talking about a very small number of special advisers in government. As I said, at times I think that people have become rather hysterical on the subject, and this evening I have been grateful for the more measured way in which Members of your Lordships' House have approached it.
	As has been said by all speakers, special advisers have been around for a long time. They have been employed by successive administrations. It is also true that their employment adds a political dimension to the advice and assistance available to Ministers, while reinforcing the political impartiality of the permanent Civil Service by distinguishing the source of political advice and support. In a sense, that goes back to what Harold Wilson, as Prime Minister, saw as being important about the role of special advisers. In a speech to the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Jamaica in May 1975, he said that one thing that was important about the Civil Service was its pride in its political impartiality. As a result, unlike the case in, for example, the United States, political change does not mean drastic change in the Civil Service. This gives our system a degree of continuity and stability which is often admired. That was one reason that Harold Wilson felt that it was necessary—perhaps essential—to formalise the position of special advisers and to protect the political impartiality of an independent Civil Service. He, as we in government currently do, had great respect for that tradition established following the Northcote-Trevelyan reforms in the mid-19th century.
	So, as the noble Lord, Lord Sheldon, made plain, special advisers have been in place for some 40 years, if not more—there is a history of them being around in the early 20th century. But in the 1970s, with a new Prime Minister taking up office in 1974, there was a greater formalisation of their role, and I think that that was right. In essence, that is what we have built on in our time in government.
	Harold Wilson was clear about how he saw a special adviser's role. I quote from the same conference speech:
	"The Political Adviser is an extra pair of hands, ears and eyes and a mind more politically committed and more politically aware than would be available to a Minister from the political neutrals in the established Civil Service".
	It is true to say that, since then, every administration has appointed them in pretty much the same spirit.
	There is a wide measure of agreement among some of the most respected figures in public life about the valuable role that special advisers have had to play. We have some former top-drawer special advisers sitting in your Lordships' House and they have given voice to that, as the noble Lord, Lord McNally, did earlier.
	It is perhaps worth quoting the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, in her evidence to the Committee on Standards in Public Life leading up to the committee's ninth report. She said:
	"In my view, I think special advisers play a very valuable role".
	The Committee on Standards in Public Life, in its ninth report, published in April 2003, said:
	"In short, special advisers have a valuable role to play precisely because they are free to act and advise in a way that a politically impartial civil servant cannot".
	So there appears to be a broad consensus that special advisers have an important contribution to make.
	That is why the Government have sought to ensure that there is a measure of transparency and accountability. We have never made any secret of special advisers' activities. Our Government were responsible for publishing, for the first time ever, the model contract and code of conduct for special advisers. We publish, on an annual basis, information about numbers, names and costs of special advisers. I have to say, this is a transparency that did not exist under previous administrations.
	Since 1997, we have had a model contract and code of conduct for special advisers, both of which are public documents setting out clear and transparent terms and conditions for their employment. The Government are totally committed to maintaining an impartial, permanent Civil Service, and we have made that clear in our manifestos in the past. By clearly distinguishing political advice and support from that provided by the official machine, we are ensuring that the key principles which underpin an impartial Civil Service are upheld.
	Both Ministers and special advisers have in their codes of conduct a requirement to uphold the political impartiality of the service. Section 3.1 of the Ministerial Code says:
	"Ministers have a duty to give fair consideration and due weight to informed and impartial advice from civil servants, as well as to other considerations and advice, in reaching policy decisions; a duty to uphold the political impartiality of the Civil Service, and not to ask civil servants to act in any way which would conflict with the Civil Service Code; a duty to ensure that influence over appointments is not abused for partisan purposes; and a duty to observe the obligations of a good employer with regard to terms and conditions of those who serve them. Civil servants should not be asked to engage in activities likely to call in question their political impartiality, or to give rise to the criticism that people paid from public funds are being used for Party political purposes".
	Further to underline the point, in the code of conduct for special advisers it states that special advisers:
	"should act in a way which upholds the political impartiality of civil servants and does not conflict with the Civil Service Code".
	At the heart of this debate is the question put by the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, as to whether the Government propose to make any changes to the role of special advisers. The answer to that is simply "no". In July of this year, the Civil Service Order in Council was amended to clarify the role of special advisers. That amendment was made as a direct result of a recommendation by the Public Administration Select Committee, and reflects the reality of how special advisers have been operating under successive administrations. The amendment, from saying that special advisers give "advice" to Ministers, was changed to say that special advisers give "assistance" to Ministers. It did not seek to give additional powers to direct civil servants. It simply corrects an anomaly that has existed for a number of years properly to reflect the reality of what special advisers do.
	For example, it has long been recognised that one of the jobs of a special adviser is to brief the media. You could not possibly argue that that could be defined as "advice to Ministers". That change, which has been taking place over 20 to 30 years, had to be properly reflected in a change to the Civil Service Order.
	There was, and is, no intention to extend special advisers' powers. The code of conduct and model contract for special advisers are clear about their roles and what they can and cannot do.
	There has been some suggestion that Parliament was not properly consulted or informed of the changes. We informed Parliament of that in the normal way—by means of a Written Ministerial Statement—and the amendment was also published in the Gazette in the usual way.
	Concerns have also been raised about special advisers directing civil servants. The Civil Service Order in Council permits the employment of up to three special advisers in No. 10 with executive powers to manage and direct civil servants. Currently only one special adviser has those powers. I can confirm, as I have on other occasions, that there are no plans to appoint any other special advisers with executive powers.
	Much reference has been made to the changing number of advisers. As I said earlier, there are currently just 80. Permanent civil servants will always massively outnumber special advisers, but we do not believe that the question of special advisers should be considered as a numerical issue in any event. What matters is how well Ministers, civil servants and special advisers work together—the essence of what, I think, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, described as a co-operative and collaborative relationship.
	Our focus is on ensuring that there is a clear understanding of roles and responsibilities as the best way of encouraging the teamwork that underpins close and effective working relationships. As recommended by the Committee on Standards in Public Life in its ninth report, the updated version of the code of conduct issued after the general election clarifies special advisers' relationship with permanent civil servants, making clear what they can and cannot do.
	I am very grateful to noble Lords who have raised this issue. It has been interesting to hear some of the historical points made. I found that very useful and informative. In closing, I simply reiterate that this Government place the highest importance and regard on maintaining a strong, politically independent, neutral and impartial civil service. I have heard some of the criticisms made by noble Lords and do not recognise specialist advisers in the light that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, in particular, played upon them. We believe that special advisers play an important role.

Lord McNally: My Lords, the Minister is about to sit down without telling us the date of the Second Reading of the Civil Service Bill.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, it would not be right to ignore the noble Lord's point; nor would it be right to pre-empt the judgment of Ministers more senior than me about whether to introduce such legislation. Our consultation period is drawing to a close. As I said on several occasions, we are considering the representations. No doubt, having made those considerations, we will come to an informed view and advise not just your Lordships' House but, more importantly, another place.
	The employment of special advisers does not undermine but reinforces the political impartiality of the Civil Service. We hold that in the highest regard. All the changes and improvements that we have made to protect that by clearly setting out the nature and role of special advisers and their relationship with civil servants have done a great deal to protect that impartiality. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for initiating the debate. No doubt, we will return to the matter on other occasions. I look forward to that.

House adjourned at twenty-nine minutes past nine o'clock.